1

<RULE>

<PREAMB>

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0080; 4500030113]

RIN 1018–AY18

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered

Status for the Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly and Threatened Status for the

Streaked Horned Lark

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

2

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine endangered

status for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylori) and threatened

status for the streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) under the Endangered

Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. This final rule adds these species to the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and implements the Federal protections provided by

the Act for these species. This rule also establishes a special rule under section 4(d) of

the Act to exempt certain activities from the take prohibitions of the Act and our

regulations in order to provide for the conservation of the streaked horned lark.

DATES: This rule is effective [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov

and http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/TCBSHL.html . Comments and materials received, as

well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this rule, will be available

for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive SE., Suite

102, Lacey, WA 98503–1263; 360–753–9440 (telephone); 360–753–9008 (facsimile).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Berg, Manager, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive, Suite 102,

Lacey, WA 98503-1263; by telephone 360–753–9440; or by facsimile 360–753–9405.

3

Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule

On October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61938), we published a proposed rule to list the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylori) as an endangered species, and

the streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) as a threatened species. In this

final rule, we are finalizing our proposed determinations for these species under the Act.

The Act requires that a final rule be published in order to add species to the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to provide protections under the Act. Elsewhere in

today’s Federal Register, we are finalizing designation of critical habitat for these

species under the Act. The final critical habitat designations and supporting documents

are published under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2013-0009. The table below summarizes

our determination for each of these species:

Table 1. Summary of the status and range of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and

the streaked horned lark.

Species Present range Status

Taylor’s

checkerspot

Euphydryas editha

taylori

British Columbia,

Canada;

Endangered

4

butterfly Clallam, Pierce, and

Thurston Counties, WA;

and Benton County, OR.

Streaked

horned lark

Eremophila

alpestris strigata

Grays Harbor, Mason,

Pacific, Pierce, Thurston,

Cowlitz, and Wahkiakum

Counties, WA; Benton,

Clackamas, Clatsop,

Columbia, Lane, Linn,

Marion, Multnomah,

Polk, Washington, and

Yamhill Counties, OR.

Threatened

This rule:

• Lists the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly as an endangered species under the Act

because it is currently in danger of extinction throughout the species’ range.

• Lists the streaked horned lark as a threatened species under the Act because it is

likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout the species’

range due to continued threats.

• Establishes a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act to exempt certain airport

maintenance activities and operations, agricultural activities, and noxious weed

5

control activities from the take prohibitions of the Act and our regulations in order

to provide for the conservation of the streaked horned lark.

The basis for our action

Under the Act, we can determine that a species is an endangered or threatened

species based on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction,

modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial,

recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the

inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors

affecting its continued existence.

We have determined that these species are impacted by one or more of the

following factors to the extent that the species meets the definition of an endangered or

threatened species under the Act:

• Habitat loss through conversion and degradation of habitat, particularly from

agricultural and urban development, successional changes to grassland habitat,

military training, and the spread of invasive plants;

• Predation (streaked horned lark);

• Inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms that allow significant threats such as

habitat loss;

• Other natural or manmade factors, including low genetic diversity, small or

isolated populations, low reproductive success, and declining population sizes;

• Aircraft strikes and training at airports (streaked horned lark); and

• Pesticide use (potential threat for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly).

6

Peer review and public comment

We sought comments from independent specialists to ensure that our

determination is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We

invited these peer reviewers to comment on our listing proposal. We also considered all

comments and information we received during the comment periods and the public

hearing.

Background

It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the listing

determinations for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark in this

final rule. A summary of topics relevant to this final rule is provided below. Additional

information on both species may be found in the proposed rule, which was published

October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61938).

Previous Federal Action

Candidate History

We first identified the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark

as candidates for listing in our 2001 candidate notice of review (CNOR) (66 FR 54808;

October 30, 2001). Each candidate species is assigned a listing priority number (LPN)

that is based on the immediacy and magnitude of threats and taxonomic status. In 2001,

7

both of these species were assigned an LPN of 6, which reflects threats of a high

magnitude that are not considered imminent.

In 2004, based on new information, we determined that the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly faced imminent threats of a high magnitude, and we assigned it an LPN of 3 (69

FR 24876; May 4, 2004). In 2006, the streaked horned lark was also assigned an LPN of

3, based on a review indicating that the continued loss of suitable lark habitat, risks to the

wintering populations, and plans for development, hazing, and military training activities

were imminent threats to the species (71 FR 53756; September 12, 2006). The candidate

status, with an LPN of 3 for each species, for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the

streaked horned lark was most recently reaffirmed in the November 21, 2012, CNOR (77

FR 69994). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) completed action plans for the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark and set conservation targets

and identified actions to achieve those targets over the next 5 years. These plans can be

found on the Service’s website at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/action_plans/doc3089.pdf

(Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly) and

http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/STHL_Action%20Plan_Sept2009.pdf (streaked horned

lark).

On October 11, 2012, we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to list

the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly as endangered and the streaked horned lark as

threatened, and to designate critical habitat for these two species (77 FR 61938). This

proposed rule also contained a proposed special rule under section 4(d) of the Act for the

8

streaked horned lark. The 60-day comment period on that proposed rule closed on

December 10, 2012. On April 3, 2013, we published a document making available the

draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designations for the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark, and an amended required

determinations section of the proposed designations (78 FR 20074). We additionally

announced three public information workshops and a public hearing, held in April 2013,

on the proposed rule to list the species and the associated critical habitat designations.

The public comment period was reopened for 30 days, ending on May 3, 2013. The final

rule designating critical habitat for these two species is published elsewhere in today’s

Federal Register.

Species Information—Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is a medium-sized, colorfully marked butterfly

with a checkerboard pattern on the upper (dorsal) side of the wings (Pyle 2002, p. 310).

Their wings are orange with black and yellowish (or white) spot bands, giving them a

checkered appearance (Pyle 1981, p. 607; Pyle 2002, p. 310). The Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly was historically known to occur in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon,

and its current distribution represents a reduction from over 80 locations rangewide to 14.

Taxonomy and Species Description

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is a subspecies of Edith’s checkerspot butterfly

(Euphydryas editha). The Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly was originally described by

9

W.H. Edwards (1888) from specimens collected from Beacon Hill Park in Victoria,

British Columbia (BC). Euphydryas editha taylori is recognized as a valid subspecies by

the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 2012a). It is one of several rare and

threatened subspecies of Edith’s checkerspot butterfly, including the Bay checkerspot (E.

e. bayensis) from the San Francisco Bay area and the Quino checkerspot (E. e. quino)

from the San Diego, California, region; both are federally listed under the Act. For

further information, see the proposed rule published on October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61938).

Distribution

Historically, the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly was likely distributed throughout

grassland habitat found on prairies, shallow-soil balds (a bald is a small opening on

slopes in a treeless area, dominated by herbaceous vegetation), grassland bluffs, and

grassland openings within a forested matrix in south Vancouver Island, northern Olympic

Peninsula, the south Puget Sound, and the Willamette Valley. The historical range and

abundance of the subspecies are not precisely known because extensive searches for the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly did not occur until recently. Northwest prairies were

formerly more common, larger, and interconnected, and would likely have supported a

greater distribution and abundance of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies than prairie

habitat does today. According to Dr. Robert Pyle (2012, in litt.):

“Euphydryas editha taylori was previously more widely distributed and much

denser in occurrence than is presently the case on the Puget Prairies. The

checkerspot was abundant on the Mima Mounds Natural Area Preserve (NAP)

and surrounding prairies in 1970. In the mid-eighties, Taylor’s checkerspot

10

butterfly flew by the thousands on Rock Prairie, a private farm property west of

Tenino. All of these sites have since been rendered unsuitable for E. e. taylori

through management changes, and Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly has dropped out

of them; meanwhile, many other colonies have disappeared in their vicinity

through outright development or conversion of the habitat. The same is true for

bluff-top colonies I knew in the early '70s at Dungeness. The ongoing loss and

alteration of habitat in the western Washington grasslands has without question

led to the shrinkage of Taylor's checkerspot occurrences from a regional

constellation to a few small clusters.”

Before the recent declines observed over roughly the last 10 or 15 years, the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly was known from an estimated 80 locations: 24 in British

Columbia, 43 in Washington, and 13 in Oregon (Hinchliff 1996, p. 115; Shepard 2000,

pp. 25–26; Vaughan and Black 2002, p. 6; Stinson 2005, pp. 93–96, 123–124). These

sites included coastal and inland prairies on southern Vancouver Island and surrounding

islands in the Straits of Georgia, British Columbia and the San Juan Island archipelago

(Hinchliff 1996, p. 115; Pyle 2002, p. 311), as well as open prairies on post-glacial

gravelly outwash and shallow-soil balds in Washington's Puget Trough (Potter 2010, p.

1), the north Olympic Peninsula (Holtrop 2010, p. 1), and grassland habitat within a

forested matrix in Oregon's Willamette Valley (Benton County 2010, Appendix N, p. 5).

The 1949 field season summary for North American lepidoptera (Hopfinger 1949,

p. 89) states that an abundant distribution of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly was

11

known from the south Puget Sound prairies: “Euphydryas editha (taylori), as usual,

appeared by the thousands on Tenino Prairie.” By 1989, Pyle (p. 170) had reported that

there were fewer than 15 populations remaining rangewide. Surveys in 2001 and 2002 of

the three historical locations on Hornby Island, British Columbia, failed to detect any the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies; the last observation of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly

from this location was 1995 (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

(COSEWIC) 2011, p. 15). By fall 2002, only six populations were known to occur

rangewide, four from the south Puget Sound region in Washington, one from San Juan

County, Washington, and one from the Willamette Valley of Oregon (USFWS 2002a).

Current Range and Distribution

Nearly all localities for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies in British Columbia

have been lost; the only location currently known from British Columbia was discovered

in 2005 (COSEWIC 2011, p. iv). In Oregon, although many surveys have been

conducted at a variety of historical and potential locations within the Willamette Valley,

many of those have failed to detect the species; the number of locations occupied by

Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies in Oregon has declined from 13 to 2 (Ross 2011, in litt.,

p. 1). In Washington State, more than 43 historical locales were documented for the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. In 2012, there were 11 documented locations for the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies with only 1 of the localities harboring more than 1,000

individuals, and the majority of known sites have daily counts of fewer than 100

individual butterflies.

12

Due to the limited distribution and few populations of the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly, surveys for this subspecies are quite thorough, generally consisting of a

minimum of 3 days of visits during the flight period, and occasionally numbering up to

10 or 12 days of counts. Multiple days of counts during the annual flight period greatly

increase the reliability of abundance data for butterflies; thus, we believe the data on

numbers of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies to be highly reliable.

Canada—After years of surveys (2001 through 2004) at historical population sites

in British Columbia that failed to detect the Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies (COSEWIC

2011, pp. 15–16), a population was discovered on Denman Island in 2005. Denman

Island is located approximately 106 miles (170 km) north of Victoria, British Columbia,

along the eastern shores of Vancouver Island in the Straits of Georgia. The Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly records from British Columbia date from 1888 through 2011, when

the last survey was conducted. Surveys are regularly conducted on Vancouver Island and

other historical locations (Page et al. 2009, p. iv). In 2008, a single Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly was detected on Vancouver Island in the Courtney-Comox area, where they had

not been observed since 1931 (COSEWIC 2011, pp. 15–16). Additional surveys were

conducted at this location, and only the single butterfly was observed. It is likely that this

single adult had dispersed from the Denman Island population located approximately 0.3

mi (0.5 km) away. As of 2012, the only currently known occurrence of the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly in Canada is on Denman Island (Page et al. 2009, p. 2; COSEWIC

2011, p. iv).

13

Washington—In Washington, surveys have been conducted annually for Taylor’s

checkerspot butterflies in currently and historically occupied sites. Surveys on south

Puget Sound prairies have been conducted from 1997 through 2011, by the Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Washington Department of Natural

Resources (WDNR), Center for Natural Lands Management (previously The Nature

Conservancy of Washington), and personnel from the Wildlife Branch of Joint Base

Lewis-McChord (JBLM; formerly known as Fort Lewis Army Base and McChord Air

Force Base, respectively). In 1994, a report from Char and Boersma (1995) indicated the

presence of Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies on the 13th Division Prairie on JBLM; no

additional locations have been reported since 1999, when a handful of Taylor’s

checkerspot butterflies were observed by WDFW (Hays et al. 2000, p. 13). Surveys have

been conducted annually on the 13th Division Prairie since 2000; however, no Taylor’s

checkerspot butterflies have been detected during the spring flight period (Ressa 2003,

pp. 7, 14; Gilbert 2004, p. 5; Linders 2012c, in litt.). Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies are

believed to be extirpated from the 13th Division Prairie at JBLM (Linders 2012c, in litt.).

Four other sites in Thurston County (Glacial Heritage, Scatter Creek north and

south units, and Rocky Prairie NAP) had Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies present in 1997.

No Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies were observed during surveys conducted in 1998 and

1999 at these locations (Hays et al. 2000, p. 13; Stinson 2005, p. 95). Subsequent annual

surveys at Glacial Heritage and Scatter Creek, south unit, have not detected Taylor’s

checkerspot butterflies until reintroduction through translocation to these sites resulted in

occupation (Linders and Olson 2011, slide number 17; Bidwell 2012, pers. comm.). We

14

did not count these sites as occupied in 2012, but after 3 years of positive survey data, we

tentatively consider them occupied.

Four historical locales for Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies were permanently lost

in the south Puget Sound region to development (Dupont, JBLM Training Area 7S,

Spanaway, and Lakewood in Pierce County) or conversion to agriculture (Rock Prairie in

Thurston County) (Stinson 2005, pp. 93–96). In addition, several older Washington

specimens are labeled with general or imprecise locality names on their collection labels

(e.g., Olympia 1893; Tenino 1929; Shelton 1971; Dungeness 1999) (Stinson 2005, pp.

94–95). Some of these site names may refer to unknown or currently occupied locales,

but due to the imprecise nature of their collection data, the actual location of these

collection sites has not been determined.

Surveys of 15 prairies within the south Puget Sound landscape in 2001 and 2002

located Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies on only 4 sites in Thurston and Pierce Counties

(Stinson 2005, pp. 93–96). Three of the four sites were found in the Bald Hill landscape

in southeast Thurston County. Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies were documented at the

Bald Hills through 2007, but there have been no detections since, despite regular and

thorough surveying from 2001 through 2011 (Potter 2011, p. 3). This number has

declined substantially in recent years as habitat has become increasingly shaded and

modified by encroaching trees, nonnative grasses, and the invasive, nonnative shrub

Scot’s broom (Cytisus scoparius). Potter (2010, p. 1) reported multiple site visits to

conduct redundant surveys in formerly occupied bald habitat during the 2008–2010 flight

15

period with no Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies observed. The subspecies is presumed to

be extirpated from this location.

The 91st Division Prairie is located on JBLM and encompasses approximately

7,600 acres (ac) (3,075 hectares (ha)) of native grassland. Taylor’s checkerspot

butterflies are documented at two locations within 91st Division Prairie, Range 50-51,

and Range 72-76. The only extant, naturally occurring population of the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly within the south Puget Sound is located here, and has served as the

source population for the collection of eggs and adult butterflies for captive propagation

for reintroduction efforts. This is the largest population of the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly, and it occurs in several small, discrete patches of habitat. Maximum daily

counts from surveys conducted at this site between 2005–2012 ranged from 70 to 2,070

(Randolph, unpub. data, p. 79; Wolford 2006; Olson and Linders 2010; Linders 2011b;

Linders 2012d, p. 27).

In the course of conducting surveys for another rare grassland-associated butterfly

found in Washington, the island marble (Euchloe ausonides insulanus), over 150

potential grassland locations where historical locales for Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies

exist (Pyle 1989, p. 170) were surveyed for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly in the north

Puget Sound region during spring of 2005 through the spring of 2011 (Miskelly 2005;

Potter et al. 2011). Although the flight periods and habitat of both butterflies overlap, no

Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies were found during these surveys.

16

Several historical sites with potentially suitable habitat were surveyed on the

north Olympic Peninsula (Clallam County) during spring 2003. The Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly was found to occupy five locations in this geographic area in 2003.

At one historical site near the mouth of the Dungeness River, only a few individuals were

detected. However, no Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies were detected at this location

during surveys from 2005 through 2009 (McMillan 2007, pers. comm.; Potter 2012, pers.

comm.). The other four populations were found on grassy openings on shallow-soiled

bald habitat west of the Elwha River. Two of these sites were estimated to support at

least 50 to 100 adult Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies (Dan Kelly Ridge and Eden Valley),

and just a few individuals were found at the two other bald sites (Striped Peak and

Highway 112) (Hays 2011, p. 1). Subsequent surveys at the latter two sites, Striped Peak

and Highway 112, from 2004–2011, have failed to relocate or detect any Taylor’s

checkerspot butterflies.

In 2006, a population was discovered near the town of Sequim. Taylor’s

checkerspot butterflies have since been detected annually at this location from 2006–

2011 (Hays 2009, pers. comm.; Hays 2011, p. 29). At this site, Taylor’s checkerspot

butterflies inhabit approximately 5 ac (2 ha) of estuarine, deflation plain (or back beach),

a road with restricted use, and farm-edge habitat. In 2010, a maximum count of 568

Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies was recorded on a single day (April 3, 2010); normally

peak daily counts from this location range from 50 to 240 individuals (Hays 2011, p. 29).

17

Since 2007, three new Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly populations have been

found in Clallam County on Olympic National Forest lands. All three sites are located in

the Dungeness River watershed: Bear Mountain, Three O’Clock Ridge, and Upper

Dungeness (Holtrop 2009, p. 2). The U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) and WDFW

are currently monitoring butterfly numbers at these sites annually. As of 2012, a total of

six occupied sites are known from Clallam County: Sequim, Eden Valley, Dan Kelly

Ridge, Bear Mountain, Three O’Clock Ridge, and Upper Dungeness.

Oregon—All of the 13 historical locales within the Willamette Valley of western

Oregon have been surveyed regularly by local lepidopterists (McCorkle 2008, pers.

comm.; Ross 2005; Stinson 2005, p. 124; Benton County 2010, p. 13; Potter 2012, pers.

comm.). Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies were formerly reported to exist in large

numbers (“swarms on the meadows beside Oak Creek”) on the upland prairies of the

Willamette Valley in Lane, Benton, and Polk Counties (Dornfeld 1980, p. 73). Now only

remnant populations exist in Oregon. In 1999, Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies were

discovered along the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) right-of-way corridor in an

area known as Fitton Green-Cardwell Hill in Benton County. In 2004, surveys for the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly were expanded in the Willamette Valley, where a second

population was discovered on grassland openings within the Beazell Memorial Forest in

Benton County. These two locations for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly are currently

the only occupied patches known from Oregon.

18

Summary—Based on historical and current data, the distribution and abundance

of Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies have declined significantly rangewide, with the

majority of local extirpations occurring from approximately the mid-1990s in Canada

(COSEWIC 2011, p. 15), 1999–2004 in south Puget Sound, and around 2007 at the Bald

Hills location in Washington. Several new locations harboring Taylor’s checkerspot

butterflies have been rediscovered on historical sites on WDNR lands (USFWS 2004, pp.

3–4; USFWS 2007, p. 5) and have also been found at new locations on natural and

manipulated balds within the Dungeness River watershed on the north Olympic Peninsula

in Washington. Currently 14 individual locations are considered occupied by the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly rangewide: Denman Island (British Columbia, Canada);

Eden Valley, Dan Kelly Ridge, Sequim, Bear Mountain, Three O’Clock Ridge, and

Upper Dungeness (north Olympic Peninsula, Washington); Range 72-76, Range 50-51,

Pacemaker Training Area 14 (JBLM, Washington); Scatter Creek, and Glacial Heritage

(south Puget Sound, Washington); and Beazell Memorial Forest, and Fitton Green-

Cardwell Hill (Oregon).

Habitat

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly occupies open grassland habitat found on prairies,

shallow-soil balds (Chappell 2006, p. 1), grassland bluffs, and grassland openings within

a forested matrix in south Vancouver Island, British Columbia; the north Olympic

Peninsula and the south Puget Sound, Washington; and the Willamette Valley, Oregon.

The recently discovered population on Denman Island in Canada, discovered in May

2005, occupies an area that had been clear-cut harvested, and is now dominated by, and

19

maintained as, grass and forb vegetation (for details, see 77 FR 61938; October 11,

2012). In British Columbia, Canada, Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies were historically

known to occupy coastal grassland habitat on Vancouver Island and nearby islands, not

forests that were converted to early successional conditions by clear-cutting. In

Washington, Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies inhabit glacial outwash prairies in the south

Puget Sound region. Northwest prairies were formerly more common, larger, and

interconnected, and would likely have supported a greater distribution and abundance of

Taylor's checkerspot butterflies than prairie habitat does today (Pyle 2012, in litt.). On

the northeast Olympic Peninsula they use shallow-soil balds and grasses within a forested

landscape, as well as roadsides, former clear-cut areas within a forested matrix, and a

coastal stabilized dune site near the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Stinson 2005, pp. 93–96).

The two Oregon sites are on grassland hills in the Willamette Valley within a forested

matrix (Vaughan and Black 2002, p. 7; Ross 2008, p. 1; Benton County 2010, Appendix

N, p. 5).

Biology

Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies produce one brood per year. They overwinter

(diapause) in the fourth or fifth larval instar (developmental) phase and have a flight

period as adults of 10 to 14 days, usually in May, although depending on local site and

climatic conditions, the flight period begins in late April and extends into early July, as in

Oregon, where the flight season has been documented as lasting up to 45 days (Ross

2008, p. 2). All nontropical checkerspot butterflies, including the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly, have the capability to reenter diapause prior to metamorphosis during years that

20

weather is extremely inhospitable or when the larval food resources are restricted

(Ehrlich and Hanski 2004, p. 22). It is important to note that while Taylor’s checkerspot

butterflies are obvious while on the wing during the flight period, they are present and

relatively sedentary throughout the rest of the year while in their larval form; we consider

them a resident subspecies year-round and especially vulnerable to many forms of

disturbance while in the life-history stages prior to metamorphosis.

Female Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies and their larvae utilize plants that contain

defensive chemicals known as iridoid glycosides, which have been recognized to

influence the selection of oviposition sites by adult nymphalid butterflies (butterflies in

the family Nymphalidae) (Murphy et al. 2004, p. 22; Page et al. 2009, p. 2), and function

as a feeding stimulant for some checkerspot larvae (Kuussaari et al. 2004, p. 147). As

maturing larvae feed, they accumulate these defensive chemical compounds from their

larval host plants into their bodies. According to the work of Bowers (1981, pp. 373–

374), this accumulation appears to deter predation. These larval host plants include

members of the Broomrape family (Orobanchaceae), such as Castilleja (paintbrushes)

and Orthocarpus, which is now known as Triphysaria (owl’s clover), and native and

nonnative Plantago species, which are members of the Plantain family (Plantaginaceae)

(Pyle 2002, p. 311; Vaughan and Black 2002, p. 8). The recent rediscovery in 2005 of

Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies in Canada led to the observation that additional food

plants (Veronica serpyllifolia (thymeleaf speedwell) and V. beccabunga ssp. americana

(American speedwell)) were being utilized by Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly larvae

(Heron 2008, pers. comm.; Page et al. 2009, p. 2). Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly larvae

21

had previously been confirmed feeding on Plantago lanceolata (narrow-leaf plantain)

and P. maritima (sea plantain) in British Columbia (Guppy and Shepard 2001, p. 311),

narrow-leaf plantain and Castilleja hispida (harsh paintbrush) in Washington (Char and

Boersma 1995, p. 29; Pyle 2002, p. 311; Severns and Grosboll 2011, p. 4), and

exclusively on narrow-leaf plantain in Oregon (Dornfeld 1980, p. 73; Ross 2008, pers.

comm.; Severns and Warren 2008, p. 476). In 2012, the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly

was documented preferentially ovipositing on the threatened Castilleja levisecta (golden

paintbrush) in studies conducted in Washington, and in 2013, Castilleja levisecta was

subsequently observed being utilized as a larval host plant in both Washington and

Oregon (Kaye 2013; Aubrey 2013, in litt.), as originally hypothesized by Dr. Robert Pyle

(Pyle 2002, p. 311; Pyle 2007, pers. comm.).

Species Information—Streaked Horned Lark

Streaked horned lark is endemic to the Pacific Northwest (historically found in

British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon; Altman 2011, p. 196) and is a subspecies of

the wide-ranging horned lark (Eremophila alpestris). Horned larks are small, ground-

dwelling birds, approximately 6−8 inches (in) (16−20 centimeters (cm)) in length

(Beason 1995, p. 2). Adults are pale brown, but shades of brown vary geographically

among the subspecies. The male’s face has a yellow wash in most subspecies. Adults

have a black bib, black whisker marks, black “horns” (feather tufts that can be raised or

lowered), and black tail feathers with white margins (Beason 1995, p. 2). Juveniles lack

the black face pattern and are varying shades of gray, from almost white to almost black

with a silver-speckled back (Beason 1995, p. 2). The streaked horned lark has a dark

22

brown back, yellowish underparts, a walnut brown nape, and yellow eyebrow stripe and

throat (Beason 1995, p. 4). This subspecies is conspicuously more yellow beneath and

darker on the back than almost all other subspecies of horned lark. The combination of

small size, dark brown back, and yellow underparts distinguishes this subspecies from all

adjacent forms.

Taxonomy and Species Description

The horned lark is a bird found throughout the northern hemisphere (Beason

1995, p. 1); it is the only true lark (Family Alaudidae, Order Passeriformes) native to

North America (Beason 1995, p. 1). There are 42 subspecies of horned lark worldwide

(Clements et al. 2011, entire). Twenty-one subspecies of horned larks are found in North

America; 15 subspecies occur in western North America (Beason 1995, p. 4). Subspecies

of horned larks are based primarily on differences in color, body size, and wing length.

Molecular analysis has further borne out these morphological distinctions (Drovetski et

al. 2005, p. 875). Western populations of horned larks are generally paler and smaller

than eastern and northern populations (Beason 1995, p. 3). The streaked horned lark was

first described as Otocorys alpestris strigata by Henshaw (1884, pp. 261–264, 267–268);

the type locality was Fort Steilacoom, Washington (Henshaw 1884, p. 267). There are

four other breeding subspecies of horned larks in Washington and Oregon: pallid horned

lark (E. a. alpina), dusky horned lark (E. a. merrilli), Warner horned lark (E. a.

lamprochroma), and Arctic horned lark (E. a. articola) (Marshall et al. 2003, p. 426;

Wahl et al. 2005, p. 268). None of these other subspecies breed within the range of the

23

streaked horned lark, but all four subspecies frequently overwinter in mixed species

flocks in the Willamette Valley (Marshall et al. 2003, pp. 425–427).

Drovetski et al. (2005, p. 877) evaluated the genetic distinctiveness, conservation

status, and level of genetic diversity of the streaked horned lark using the complete

mitochondrial ND2 gene. Streaked horned larks were closely related to the California

samples and only distantly related to the three closest localities (alpine Washington,

eastern Washington, and Oregon). There was no evidence of immigration into the

streaked horned lark’s range from any of the sampled localities. Analyses indicate that

the streaked horned lark population is well-differentiated and isolated from all other

sampled localities, including coastal California, and has “remarkably low genetic

diversity” (Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 875).

Streaked horned lark is differentiated and isolated from all other sampled

localities, and although it was “…historically a part of a larger Pacific Coast lineage of

horned larks, it has been evolving independently for some time and can be considered a

distinct evolutionary unit” (Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 880). Thus, genetic analyses support

the subspecies designation for the streaked horned lark (Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 880),

which has been considered a relatively well-defined subspecies based on physical

(phenotypic) characteristics (Beason 1995, p. 4). The streaked horned lark is recognized

as a valid subspecies by the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 2012c). For

more information on taxonomy, see the proposed rule published on October 11, 2012 (77

FR 61938).

24

Distribution

Historical Range and Distribution

Streaked horned lark’s breeding range historically extended from southern British

Columbia, Canada, south through the Puget lowlands and outer coast of Washington,

along the lower Columbia River, through the Willamette Valley, the Oregon coast and

into the Umpqua and Rogue River Valleys of southwestern Oregon.

British Columbia—Streaked horned lark was never considered common in British

Columbia, but local breeding populations were known on Vancouver Island, in the Fraser

River Valley, and near Vancouver International Airport (Campbell et al. 1997, p. 120;

COSEWIC 2003, p. 5). The population declined throughout the 20th century (COSEWIC

2003, pp. 13–14); breeding has not been confirmed since 1978, and the streaked horned

lark is considered to be extirpated in British Columbia (COSEWIC 2003, p. 15). A single

streaked horned lark was sighted on Vancouver Island in 2002 (COSEWIC 2003, p. 16).

Washington—The first report of the streaked horned lark in the San Juan Islands,

Washington, was in 1948 from Cattle Point (Goodge 1950, p. 28). There are breeding

season records of streaked horned larks from San Juan and Lopez Islands in the 1950s

and early 1960s (Retfalvi 1963, p. 13; Lewis and Sharpe 1987, pp. 148, 204), but the last

record dates from 1962, when seven individuals were seen in July on San Juan Island at

25

Cattle Point (Retfalvi 1963, p. 13). The WDFW conducted surveys in 1999, in the San

Juan Islands (Rogers 1999, pp. 3–4). Suitable nesting habitat was visually searched and a

tape recording of streaked horned lark calls was used to elicit responses and increase the

chance of detections (Rogers 1999, p. 4). In 2000, MacLaren and Cummins (in Stinson

2005, p. 63) surveyed several sites recommended by Rogers (1999), including Cattle

Point and Lime Kiln Point on San Juan Island. No larks were detected in the San Juan

Islands during either survey effort (Rogers 1999, p. 4; Stinson 2005, p. 63).

There are a few historical records of streaked horned larks on the outer coast of

Washington near Lake Quinault, the Quinault River and the Humptulips River in the

1890s (Jewett et al. 1953, p. 438; Rogers 2000, p. 26). More recent records reported

larks at Leadbetter Point and Graveyard Spit in Pacific County in the 1960s and 1970s

(Rogers 2000, p. 26). Surveys conducted between 1999 and 2004 found larks at

Leadbetter Point, Graveyard Spit, Damon Point and Midway Beach on the Outer Coast

(Stinson 2005, p. 63).

There are scattered records of streaked horned larks in the northern Puget Trough,

including sightings in Skagit and Whatcom Counties in the mid-20th century (Altman

2011, p. 201). The last recorded sighting of a streaked horned lark in the northern Puget

Trough was at the Bellingham Airport in 1962 (Stinson 2005, p. 52).

Over a century ago, the streaked horned lark was described as a common summer

resident in the prairies of the Puget Sound region in Washington (Bowles 1898, p. 53;

26

Altman 2011, p. 201). Larks were considered common in the early 1950s “in the prairie

country south of Tacoma” and had been observed on the tide flats south of Seattle (Jewett

et al. 1953, p. 438). By the mid-1990s, only a few scattered breeding populations existed

on the south Puget Sound on remnant prairies and near airports (Altman 2011, p. 201).

There are sporadic records of streaked horned larks along the Columbia River.

Sightings on islands near Portland, Oregon, date back to the early 1900s (Rogers 2000, p.

27). A number of old reports of streaked horned larks from the Columbia River east of

the Cascade Mountains have been re-examined, and have been recognized as the

subspecies Eremophila alpestris merrilli (Rogers 2000, p. 27; Stinson 2005, p. 51). On

the lower Columbia River, it is probable that streaked horned larks breed only as far east

as Clark County, Washington, and Multnomah County, Oregon (Roger 2000, p. 27;

Stinson 2005, p. 51).

Oregon—Streaked horned lark’s historical range extends south through the

Willamette Valley of Oregon, where it was considered abundant and a common summer

resident over a hundred years ago (Johnson 1880, p. 636; Anthony 1886, p. 166). In the

1940s, the streaked horned lark was described as a common permanent resident in the

southern Willamette Valley (Gullion 1951, p. 141). By the 1990s, the streaked horned

lark was called uncommon in the Willamette Valley, nesting locally in small numbers in

large open fields (Gilligan et al. 1994, p. 205; Altman 1999, p. 18). In the early 2000s, a

population of more than 75 breeding pairs was found at the Corvallis Municipal Airport,

making this the largest population of streaked horned larks known (Moore 2008, p. 15).

27

Streaked horned lark, while occasionally present, was never reported to be more

than uncommon on the Oregon coast. The streaked horned lark was described as an

uncommon and local summer resident all along the coast on sand spits (Gilligan et al.

1994, p. 205); a few nonbreeding season records exist for the coastal counties of Clatsop,

Tillamook, Coos, and Curry (Gabrielson and Jewett 1940, p. 403). Small numbers of

streaked horned larks were known to breed at the South Jetty of the Columbia River in

Clatsop County, but the site was abandoned in the 1980s (Gilligan et al.1994, p. 205).

There are no recent occurrence records from the Oregon coast.

In the early 1900s, the streaked horned lark was considered a common permanent

resident of the Umpqua and Rogue River Valleys (Gabrielson and Jewett 1940, p. 402).

The last confirmed breeding record in the Rogue Valley was in 1976 (Marshall et al.

2003, p. 425). There are no recent reports of streaked horned larks in the Umpqua Valley

(Gilligan et al. 1994, p. 205; Marshall et al. 2003, p. 425).

Current Range and Distribution

Breeding Range—Streaked horned lark has been extirpated as a breeding

subspecies throughout much of its range, including all of its former range in British

Columbia, the San Juan Islands, the northern Puget Trough, the Washington coast north

of Grays Harbor, the Oregon coast, and the Rogue and Umpqua Valleys in southwestern

Oregon (Pearson & Altman 2005, pp. 4–5).

28

The current range of the streaked horned lark can be divided into three regions:

(1) The south Puget Sound in Washington; (2) the Washington coast and lower Columbia

River islands (including dredge spoil deposition sites near the Columbia River in

Portland, Oregon); and (3) the Willamette Valley in Oregon.

In the south Puget Sound, the streaked horned lark is found in Mason, Pierce, and

Thurston Counties, Washington (Rogers 2000, p. 37; Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 23;

Pearson et al. 2005a, p. 2; Anderson 2009, p. 4). Recent studies have found that streaked

horned larks currently breed on six sites in the south Puget Sound. Four of these sites

(13th Division Prairie, Gray Army Airfield, McChord Field, and 91st Division Prairie)

are on JBLM. Small populations of larks also breed at the Olympia Regional Airport and

the Port of Shelton’s Sanderson Field (airport) (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 23; Pearson

et al. 2008, p. 3).

On the Washington coast, there are four known breeding sites: (1) Damon Point;

(2) Midway Beach; (3) Graveyard Spit; and (4) Leadbetter Point in Grays Harbor and

Pacific Counties. On the lower Columbia River, streaked horned larks breed on several

of the sandy islands downstream of Portland, Oregon. Recent surveys have documented

breeding streaked horned larks on Rice, Miller Sands Spit, Pillar Rock, Welch,

Tenasillahe, Whites/Browns, Wallace, Crims, and Sandy Islands in Wahkiakum and

Cowlitz Counties in Washington, and Columbia and Clatsop Counties in Oregon

(Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 23; Anderson 2009, p. 4; Lassen 2011, in litt.). The

29

Columbia River forms the border between Washington and Oregon; some of the islands

occur wholly in Oregon or Washington, and some are bisected by the State line. Larks

also breed in Portland (Multnomah County, Oregon) at suitable sites near the Columbia

River. These include an open field at the Rivergate Industrial Complex and the

Southwest Quad at Portland International Airport; both sites are owned by the Port of

Portland, and were created with dredged materials (Moore 2011, pp. 9–12).

In the Willamette Valley, streaked horned larks breed in Benton, Clackamas,

Lane, Linn, Marion, Polk, Washington, and Yamhill Counties. Larks are most abundant

in the southern part of the Willamette Valley. The largest known population of larks is

resident at Corvallis Municipal Airport in Benton County (Moore 2008. p. 15); other

resident populations occur at the Baskett Slough, William L. Finley, and Ankeny units of

the Service’s Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Moore 2008, pp. 8–

9) and on Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW’s) E.E. Wilson Wildlife

Area (ODFW 2008, p. 18). Breeding populations also occur at municipal airports in the

valley (including McMinnville, Salem, and Eugene) (Moore 2008, pp. 14–17). Much of

the Willamette Valley is private agricultural land, and has not been surveyed for streaked

horned larks, except along public road margins. There are numerous other locations on

private and municipal lands on which streaked horned larks have been observed in the

Willamette Valley, particularly in the southern valley (Linn, Polk, and Benton Counties)

(eBird 2013, ebird.org). In 2008, a large population of streaked horned larks colonized a

wetland and prairie restoration site on M-DAC Farms, a privately owned parcel in Linn

County; as the vegetation at the site matured in the following 2 years, the site became less

30

suitable for larks, and the population declined (Moore and Kotaich 2010, pp. 11–13).

This is likely a common pattern, as breeding streaked horned larks opportunistically shift

sites as habitat becomes available among private agricultural lands in the Willamette

Valley (Moore 2008, pp. 9–11).

Wintering Range—Pearson et al. (2005b, p. 2) found that the majority of streaked

horned larks winter in the Willamette Valley (72 percent) and on the islands in the lower

Columbia River (20 percent); the rest winter on the Washington coast (8 percent) or in

the south Puget Sound (1 percent). In the winter, most streaked horned larks that breed in

the south Puget Sound migrate south to the Willamette Valley or west to the Washington

coast; streaked horned larks that breed on the Washington coast either remain on the

coast or migrate south to the Willamette Valley; birds that breed on the lower Columbia

River islands remain on the islands or migrate to the Washington coast; and birds that

breed in the Willamette Valley remain there over the winter (Pearson et al. 2005b, pp. 5–

6). Streaked horned larks spend the winter in large groups of mixed subspecies of horned

larks in the Willamette Valley, and in smaller flocks along the lower Columbia River and

Washington Coast (Pearson et al. 2005b, p. 7; Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 7). During

the winter of 2008, a mixed flock of over 300 horned larks was detected at the Corvallis

Municipal Airport (Moore 2011a, pers. comm.).

Population Estimates and Current Status

31

Data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) indicate that most

grassland-associated birds, including the horned lark, have declined across their ranges in

the past three decades (Sauer et al. 2012, pp. 7–9). The BBS can provide population

trend data only for those species with sufficient sample sizes for analyses. There is

insufficient data in the BBS for a rangewide analysis of the streaked horned lark

population trend (Altman 2011, p. 214); however, see below for additional analysis of the

BBS data for the Willamette Valley. An analysis of recent data from a variety of sources

concludes that the streaked horned lark has been extirpated from the Georgia Depression

(British Columbia, Canada), the Oregon coast, and the Rogue and Umpqua Valleys

(Altman 2011, p. 213); this analysis estimates the current rangewide population of

streaked horned larks to be about 1,170–1,610 individuals (Altman 2011, p. 213).

In the south Puget Sound, approximately 150–170 streaked horned larks breed at

6 sites (Altman 2011, p. 213). Recent studies have found that larks have very low nest

success in Washington (Pearson et al. 2008, p. 8); comparisons with other ground-nesting

birds in the same prairie habitats in the south Puget Sound showed that streaked horned

larks had significantly lower values in all measures of reproductive success (Anderson

2010, p. 16). Estimates of population growth rate (λ, lambda) that include vital rates

from nesting areas in the south Puget Sound, Washington coast, and Whites Island in the

lower Columbia River indicate streaked horned larks have abnormally low vital rates,

which are significantly lower than the vital rates of the arctic horned lark (Camfield et al.

2010, p. 276). One study estimated that the population of streaked horned larks in

Washington was declining by 40 percent per year (λ = 0.61 ± 0.10 SD), apparently due to

32

a combination of low survival and fecundity rates (Pearson et al., 2008, p. 12). More

recent analyses of territory mapping at 4 sites in the south Puget Sound found that the

total number of breeding streaked horned lark territories decreased from 77 territories in

2004, to 42 territories in 2007, a decline of over 45 percent in 3 years (Camfield et al.

2011, p. 8). Pearson et al. (2008, p. 14) concluded that there is a high probability of

south Puget Sound population loss in the future given the low estimates of fecundity and

adult survival along with high emigration out of the Puget Sound.

On the Washington coast and Columbia River islands, there are about 120–140

breeding larks (Altman 2011, p. 213). Data from the Washington coast and Whites

Islands were included in the population growth rate study discussed above; populations at

these sites appear to be declining by 40 percent per year (Pearson et al. 2008, p. 12).

Conversely, nest success appears to be very high at the Portland industrial sites

(Rivergate and the Southwest Quad). In 2010, nearly all nests successfully fledged

young (Moore 2011, p. 13); only 1 of 10 monitored nests lost young to predation (Moore

2011, pp. 11–12).

There are about 900–1,300 breeding streaked horned larks in the Willamette

Valley (Altman 2011, p. 213). The largest known population of streaked horned larks

breeds at the Corvallis Municipal Airport; depending on the management conducted at

the airport and the surrounding grass fields each year, the population has been as high as

100 breeding pairs (Moore and Kotaich 2010, pp. 13–15). In 2007, a large (580-ac (235-

ha)) wetland and native prairie restoration project was initiated at M-DAC Farms on a

33

former rye grass field in Linn County (Cascade Pacific RC&D 2012, p. 1). Large,

semipermanent wetlands were created at the site, and the prairie portions were burned

and treated with herbicides (Moore and Kotaich 2010, pp. 11–13). These conditions

created excellent quality ephemeral habitat for streaked horned larks, and the site was

used by about 75 breeding pairs in 2008 (Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 12), making M-

DAC the second-largest known breeding population of streaked horned larks that year.

M-DAC had high use again in 2009, but as vegetation at the site matured, the number of

breeding larks has declined, likely shifting to other agricultural habitats (Moore and

Kotaich 2010, p. 13).

We do not have population trend data in Oregon that is comparable to the study in

Washington by Pearson et al. (2008, entire); however, research on breeding streaked

horned larks indicates that nest success in the southern Willamette Valley is higher than

in Washington (Moore 2011b, pers. comm.). The best information on trends in the

Willamette Valley comes from surveys by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

(ODFW); the agency conducted surveys for grassland-associated birds, including the

streaked horned lark, in 1996 and again in 2008 (Altman 1999, p. 2; Myers and Kreager

2010, p. 2). Point count surveys were conducted at 544 stations in the Willamette Valley

(Myers and Kreager 2010, p. 2); over the 12-year period between the surveys, measures

of relative abundance of streaked horned larks increased slightly from 1996 to 2008,

according to this report. Both detections at point count stations and within regions

showed moderate increases (3 percent and 6 percent, respectively) (Myers and Kreager

2010, p. 11). Population numbers decreased slightly in the northern Willamette Valley

34

and increased slightly in the middle and southern portions of the valley (Myers and

Kreager 2010, p. 11).

Data from the BBS may provide additional insight into the trend of the streaked

horned lark population in the Willamette Valley. Although the BBS does not track bird

counts by subspecies, the streaked horned lark is the only subspecies of horned lark that

breeds in the Oregon portion of the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation

Region (BCR); therefore it is reasonable to assume that counts of horned larks from the

breeding season in the Willamette Valley are actually counts of the streaked horned lark.

The BBS data regularly detect horned larks on several routes in the Willamette Valley,

and counts from these routes show that horned larks in this BCR have been declining

since 1960s, with an estimated annual trend of -4.6 percent (95 percent confidence

intervals -6.9, -2.4) (Sauer et al. 2012, p. 4). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which

manages the BBS data, recommends caution when analyzing these data due to the small

sample size, high variance, and potential for observer bias in the raw BBS data.

The BBS data from the Willamette Valley indicate that horned larks (as

mentioned above, the BBS tracks only the full species) have been declining for decades,

which is coincident with the restrictions on grass seed field burning imposed by the

Oregon Department of Agriculture (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and

Oregon Department of Agriculture 2011, p. 1). Prior to 1990, about 250,000 ac (101,170

ha) of grass seed fields in the Willamette Valley were burned each year. Public health

and safety issues led the Oregon legislature to order gradual reductions in field burning

35

beginning in 1991. By 2009, field burning was essentially banned in the Willamette

Valley (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and Oregon Department of

Agriculture 2011, p. 1). We believe that some of the observed declines lark detections in

the BBS data are attributable to the reduction of highly suitable burned habitats due to the

field burning ban. Since the ban is now fully in effect, the decline in BBS observations

of streaked horned larks is not expected to continue at the previously noted rate.

We do not have conclusive data on population trends throughout the streaked

horned lark’s range, but the rapidly declining population on the south Puget Sound

suggests that the range of the streaked horned lark may still be contracting.

Range Contraction

Streaked horned lark has experienced a substantial contraction of its range; it has

been extirpated from all formerly documented locations at the northern end of its range

(British Columbia, and the San Juan Islands and northern Puget Trough of Washington),

the Oregon coast, and the southern edge of its range (Rogue and Umpqua Valleys of

Oregon). The streaked horned lark’s current range appears to have been reduced to less

than half the size of its historical range in the last 100 years. The pattern of range

contractions for other Pacific Northwest species (e.g., western meadowlark (Sturnella

neglecta)) shows a loss of populations in the northern part of the range, with healthier

populations persisting in the southern part of the range (Altman 2011, p. 214). The

36

streaked horned lark is an exception to this pattern—its range has contracted from both

the north and the south simultaneously (Altman 2011, p. 215).

Habitat

Historically, nesting habitat was found on grasslands, estuaries, and sandy

beaches in British Columbia; in dune habitats along the coast of Washington; in western

Washington and western Oregon prairies; and on the sandy beaches and spits along the

Columbia and Willamette Rivers. Today, the streaked horned lark nests in a broad range

of habitats, including native prairies, coastal dunes, fallow and active agricultural fields,

wetland mudflats, sparsely vegetated edges of grass fields, recently planted Christmas

tree farms with extensive bare ground, fields denuded by overwintering Canada geese,

gravel roads or gravel shoulders of lightly traveled roads, airports, and dredge deposition

sites in the lower Columbia River (Altman 1999, p. 18; Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 5;

Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 15; Moore 2008, pp. 9–10, 12–14, 16). Wintering streaked

horned larks use habitats that are very similar to breeding habitats (Pearson et al. 2005b,

p. 8).

Habitat used by larks is generally flat with substantial areas of bare ground and

sparse low-stature vegetation primarily comprised of grasses and forbs (Pearson and

Hopey 2005, p. 27). Suitable habitat is generally 16–17 percent bare ground, and may be

even more open at sites selected for nesting (Altman 1999, p. 18; Pearson and Hopey

2005, p. 27). Vegetation height is generally less than 13 in (33 cm) (Altman 1999, p. 18;

37

Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 27). Larks eat a wide variety of seeds and insects (Beason

1995, p. 6), and appear to select habitats based on the structure of the vegetation rather

than the presence of any specific food plants (Moore 2008, p. 19). A key attribute of

habitat used by larks is open landscape context. Our data indicate that sites used by larks

are generally found in open (i.e., flat, treeless) landscapes of 300 ac (120 ha) or more

(Converse et al. 2010, p. 21). Some patches with the appropriate characteristics (i.e.,

bare ground, low stature vegetation) may be smaller in size if the adjacent areas provide

the required open landscape context; this situation is common in agricultural habitats and

on sites next to water. For example, many of the sites used by streaked horned larks on

the islands in the Columbia River are small (less than 100 ac (40 ha)), but are adjacent to

open water, which provides the open landscape context needed. Streaked horned lark

populations are found at many airports within the subspecies’ range, because airport

maintenance requirements provide the desired open landscape context and short

vegetation structure.

Although streaked horned larks use a wide variety of habitats, populations are

vulnerable because the habitats used are often ephemeral or subject to frequent human

disturbance. Ephemeral habitats include bare ground in agricultural fields and wetland

mudflats; habitats subject to frequent human disturbance include mowed fields at

airports, managed road margins, agricultural crop fields, and disposal sites for dredge

material (Altman 1999, p. 19). It is important to note the key role of anthropogenically

maintained landscapes in the process of creating and maintaining habitat for the streaked

horned lark; without large-scale, manmade disturbance (e.g., burning, mowing, cropping,

38

and deposition of dredge spoils), available habitat would decrease rapidly, but these same

activities can threaten individuals when they are at sensitive life-history stages.

Biology

Horned larks forage on the ground in low vegetation or on bare ground (Beason

1995, p. 6); adults feed mainly on grass and forb seeds, but feed insects to their young

(Beason 1995, p. 6). In the Puget lowlands in Washington, streaked horned larks have

been observed selectively foraging on the spore capsules of Polytrichum juniperinum

(juniper haircap moss) during the time before grasses and forbs have set seed and insects

become plentiful (Martin 2013, in litt.; Wolf 2013, in litt.). A study of winter diet

selection found that streaked horned larks in the Willamette Valley eat seeds of

introduced weedy grasses and forbs, focusing on the seed source that is most abundant

(Moore 2008b, p. 9). In this Willamette Valley study, a variety of grasses (Digitaria

sanguinalis (large crabgrass), Panicum capillare (witchgrass), and Sporobulus sp.

(dropseed)), unidentified grasses (Poaceae), and forbs (Chenopodium album (common

lambsquarters), Amaranthus retroflexus (redroot pigweed), Trifolium arvense (rabbitfoot

clover) and Kickxia sp. (cancerweed)) were common in the winter diet of the streaked

horned lark (Moore 2008b, p. 16).

Streaked horned larks have a strong affinity for recently burned habitats. An

experimental study at JBLM found that larks had a highly significant preference for

burned versus unburned fields, and in the breeding season following a fire, lark

39

abundance was significantly higher on the burned plots (Pearson et al. 2005a, p. 14). The

decline of the streaked horned lark population in the Willamette Valley is correlated with

the reduction in agricultural field burning. Prior to the mid-1980s, as much as 250,000 ac

(101,000 ha) of grass seed fields were burned each year in the Willamette Valley; in the

1990s, the State imposed progressive reductions in field burning, until in 2012, virtually

no burning was allowed (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and Oregon

Department of Agriculture 2011, p. 1).

Horned larks form pairs in the spring (Beason 1995, p. 11). Altman (1999, p. 11)

used a small sample (n=3) of streaked horned lark territories in the Willamette Valley to

give a mean territory size of 1.9 ac (0.77 ha) with a range of 1.5 to 2.5 ac (0.61 to 1.0 ha).

Horned larks create nests in shallow depressions in the ground and line them with soft

vegetation (Beason 1995, p. 12). Nest sites are selected from suitable locations within

male mating territories, which are typically sparsely vegetated, are rockier, and have

more annual grasses than nearby areas (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 19). Female horned

larks construct the nest without help from the male (Beason 1995, p. 12). Streaked

horned larks establish their nests in areas of extensive bare ground, and nests are almost

always placed on the north side of a clump of vegetation or another object such as root

balls or soil clumps (Pearson and Hopey 2005 p. 23; Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 18).

Studies from Washington sites (the open coast, Puget lowlands, and Columbia River

islands) have found strong natal fidelity to nesting sites—that is, streaked horned larks

return each year to the place they were born (Pearson et al. 2008, p. 11).

40

The nesting season for streaked horned larks begins in mid-April and ends in late

August (Pearson and Hopey 2004, p. 11; Moore 2011, p. 32; Wolf 2011, p. 5). Clutches

range from 1 to 5 eggs, with a mean of 3 eggs (Pearson and Hopey 2004, p. 12). After

the first nesting attempt in April, streaked horned larks will often re-nest in late June or

early July (Pearson and Hopey 2004, p. 11). Young streaked horned larks leave the nest

by the end of the first week after hatching, and are cared for by the parents until they are

about 4 weeks old, when they become independent (Beason 1995, p. 15).

Nest success studies (i.e., the proportion of nests that result in at least one fledged

chick) in streaked horned larks report highly variable results. Nest success on the Puget

lowlands of Washington is low, with only 28 percent of nests successfully fledging young

(Pearson and Hopey 2004, p. 14; Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 16). According to reports

from sites in the Willamette Valley, Oregon, nest success has varied from 23 to 60

percent depending on the site (Altman 1999, p. 1; Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 23). At

one site in Portland, Oregon, Moore (2011, p. 11) found 100 percent nest success.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

In the proposed rule published on October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61938), we requested

that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by December 10,

2012. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and

organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal.

Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the Olympian in

41

Washington and in the Statesman Journal in Oregon during the reopening of the public

comment period following our Federal Register publication that made available the draft

economic analysis for the proposed critical habitat designations (April 3, 2013; 78 FR

20074). As also announced in that April 3, 2013, document, we held a public hearing in

Olympia, Washington, on April 18, 2013, and held public informational workshops in

Lacey, Washington, on April 16, 2013 (two workshops), and in Salem, Oregon, on April

17, 2013.

During the two comment periods for the proposed rule, we received nearly 100

comment letters addressing either the proposed listing or the proposed critical habitat (or

both) for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark. During the

April 18, 2013, public hearing, 34 individuals or organizations made comments on the

proposed rule. All substantive information provided during comment periods has either

been incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed below.

Peer Review

In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR

34270), we solicited expert opinion from four knowledgeable individuals with scientific

expertise that included familiarity with the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and its habitats,

biological needs, and threats, and from three knowledgeable individuals with scientific

expertise that included familiarity with the streaked horned lark and its habitats,

biological needs, and threats. We received responses from two of the peer reviewers on

42

the proposed listing of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. Both peer reviewers felt that

the proposed rule was a thorough description of the status of the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly and commented that they considered the proposed rule well researched and well

written, and one commenter stated that the rule comprehensively represented the current

scientific knowledge for the taxon. Both peer reviewers had several substantive

comments on the proposed listing of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, which we

address below. We received responses from three of the peer reviewers on the proposed

listing of the streaked horned lark. Two of the peer reviewers felt that the proposed rule

was a thorough description of the status of the streaked horned lark, and stated that we

had used the best available science in reaching our conclusions; one peer reviewer felt

that we had failed to use available information on the trend in population numbers of the

streaked horned lark in the Willamette Valley (available from the Breeding Bird Survey

database), and provided that data for our consideration. Two peer reviewers had several

substantive comments on the proposed listing of the streaked horned lark, which we

address below. Our requests for peer review are limited to a request for review of the

merits of the scientific information in our documents; if peer reviewers have volunteered

their personal opinions on matters not directly relevant to the science of our status

assessment, we do not respond to those comments here.

Comments from Peer Reviewers

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly

43

(1) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the taxonomy section of the

proposed rule was incomplete with regard to its description of the full species

Euphydryas editha (Edith’s checkerspot butterfly). He states the taxonomy of the full

species E. editha is more complicated than we summarized. However, the peer reviewer

added that despite the incomplete taxonomic treatment for the full species E. editha, the

taxonomic treatment of E. editha taylori in the proposed rule is consistent with the most

recent literature.

Our response: For the purpose of a listing document, we provide a non-technical

physical and biological description of the species, and a taxonomic description of the

entity we intend to list, which is subspecies Euphydryas editha taylori in this case. We

typically do not describe the full species from which the subspecies was derived.

(2) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that, because of the discontinuous

distribution of E. editha taylori, further taxonomic evaluation utilizing molecular genetics

techniques would better determine the amount of genetic divergence within and between

known populations.

Our response: The Service agrees that having a complete genetic evaluation is

beneficial when determining differences within and between broadly distributed species.

We are currently collaborating with U.S. Forest Service geneticists and their Genetics

Laboratory (Placerville, California), and other conservation partners on collecting tissues

and using established genetic markers to analyze the genetic structure of the Taylor’s

44

checkerspot butterfly and its closely related subspecies. The objective is to determine the

genetic identity of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. At this time, the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly is a declining taxon found only on a few declining habitat patches

throughout the subspecies’ range, and the statute directs us to make our listing

determination based upon the best scientific data available at the time of our evaluation.

(3) Comment: One peer reviewer mentioned that during mild winters the adult

flight season for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly can begin as early as March 31 (as in

2005, although this was an early season outlier). For example, the peer reviewer states

that he personally observed an adult on March 31, and that adults were still in flight in

late April in Oregon that year (2005).

Our response: We agree and consider the adult flight period for the subspecies to

be variable from year to year, primarily dependent upon the local annual weather patterns

during the late winter, and early spring of the specific flight year. We discuss in this final

rule an example of adult Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies in flight as late as the first week

of July at the Olympic Peninsula sites, which are located at higher elevation than any

other location within the subspecies’ range.

(4) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly most likely exhibited and persisted as a metapopulation composed of large and

small populations that interacted within a larger landscape context, with frequent

extinction and colonization events.

45

Our response: We agree with the concept of a metapopulation structure for

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. Small populations known only from small habitat patches

may become extirpated; however, in a metapopulation structure, other closely situated

populations may expand at the same time others are failing. By allowing recolonization

of habitat patches where extirpation has taken place, metapopulation structure supports

the presence of the (sub)species on a larger landscape, while they are still found in

distinct separate patches of habitat. Without metapopulation structure, the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly will likely become extirpated at several of the locations where it is

currently is found.

(5) Comment: One peer reviewer supports our ideas about active management to

maintain early seral conditions in occupied habitats and about the maintenance of

dispersal corridors between areas having the most dense populations of the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly. The peer reviewer cautions that management treatments to remove

encroaching tree, shrubs, and nonnative grasses still does not guarantee the persistence of

the subspecies on areas designated as critical habitat. He states that populations of E.

editha are well known to appear and disappear over large areas without any obvious

explanation.

Our response: We agree with the importance of active management, and that

without regular management activities to sustain ecosystem processes, we would quickly

lose small populations where we are working to enhance and maintain Taylor’s

46

checkerspot butterfly habitat. As noted in this rule, the lack of active management, or the

ecosystem processes to maintain early seral conditions, is a threat to the subspecies

through the loss of habitat, which is quickly rendered unsuitable and becomes unavailable

for the butterfly’s use, leading to extirpation.

(6) Comment: One peer reviewer took issue with our use of the word

“collection” of butterflies for scientific studies. He suggests there is no evidence that

collection of specimens has contributed to the decline of the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly.

Our response: We agree that we inappropriately used this term when we meant to

discuss “capture” as it is directly related to “mark, release, and recapture” studies. We

have made this change in this final rule, and replaced any mention of the term

“collection” with “capture,” except where we are discussing a collection of specimens.

(7) Comment: One peer reviewer expressed concern about the violations of

section 9 of the Act that prohibit, “Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling,

delivering, carrying or transporting of the species, including export and import across

state lines and international boundaries, except for properly documented antique

specimens of these taxa at least 100 years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act.”

Given the need for genetic and molecular phylogenetic studies of E. editha taylori, he

disagreed with the idea of restricting the movement of specimens that are less than 100

years old. He questions how specimens that have been legally collected as vouchers and

47

preserved for the purpose of future genetic, molecular, and morphological studies would

become illegal if the species were to be listed as endangered. He strongly encourages the

Service to allow the act of possessing and transporting specimens legally obtained prior

to the listing of the species in 2013, in order to facilitate and contribute to the scientific

study of the subspecies.

Our response: The proposed rule overstated the prohibitions in section 9 of the

Act. After listing takes effect, mere possession of a specimen, provided the specimen

was not collected in violation of the Act, is not prohibited, and interstate transportation of

such a specimen for the purpose of genetic testing is not prohibited as long as it does not

occur in the course of a commercial activity. This description of the prohibitions has

been corrected in this final rule.

(8) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that we include additional

information in our section on the nectar foods used in Oregon by the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly. However, the peer reviewer incorrectly stated we should better

describe the use of Fraxinus (Oregon ash), as the primary nectar source available to the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly in Oregon. We believe the reviewer mistakenly used the

term Fraxinus, when meaning to describe Fragaria virginiana (wild strawberry).

Another commenter pointed out that Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies have been observed

using dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) as a nectar source, which he believes is an

indicator of more general habitat requirements of this subspecies.

48

Our response: We did correctly discuss the use of Fragaria virginiana, not

Fraxinus, as it is the most widespread of nectar resources in Oregon, and Fragaria

virginiana is readily used by the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly at all locations in Oregon.

We have added Plectritis congesta, Amelanchier alnifolia, and Calochortus tolmiei as

nectar resources at sites where each are found, with C. tolmiei found only in Oregon. Not

all nectar sources potentially used by the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly are equal.

Although some adult butterflies may be observed using what appears to be a general

nectar source (e.g., dandelion), it may not be the optimal resource, only what is available.

Individual butterflies may be relegated to using a less-than-optimal nectar source because

that source now dominates a particular site. It is unknown whether the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly could survive solely on dandelion as a nectar source. Additionally,

nectar sources are only one determinant in characterizing the overall habitat requirements

for this subspecies.

(9) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the Service should consider

the increased disease pressure on populations of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly during

overwintering due to the predicted increase in winter precipitation. The reviewer stated

that increased precipitation as a general rule may have deleterious impacts to lepidopteran

(butterfly) larvae. The commenter also stated that there appears to be no information

available on the incidence of disease and its impacts to phenology among E. e. taylori

larvae.

49

Our response: We agree with both of these comments. We did not consider

increased pressure, or an increase in the incidence of disease due to the predicted increase

in winter precipitation, in our threats analysis. We observed examples of the impacts of

late winter inundation or frost events in occupied Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat

as having a direct mortality effect to some populations, and how anecdotally, the

population counts during those years (2009, 2010) at those population centers were

lower.

(10) Comment: One peer reviewer commented on how larvae of Euphydryas spp.

are known to be able to respond to adverse environmental conditions by delaying

development when host plants are limited or of poor quality, as the larvae may re-enter

diapause for an additional 12 months. The reviewer stated that this is an adaptation to

surviving in unreliable environments and will serve to mitigate against “phenological

mismatch” of the larvae and host plants.

Our response: We agree that during poor weather years, populations of the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly appear lower compared to other years, and we presume

that E. e. taylori larvae have likely re-entered diapause. We have addressed re-entering

diapause in the section of this final rule discussing the biology of the subspecies.

Streaked Horned Lark

50

(11) Comment: One peer reviewer and several other commenters disagreed with

our assessment of the status of the streaked horned lark as threatened rather than

endangered. In our proposed rule, we stated that there was insufficient data in the

Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data to estimate a rangewide trend for the streaked horned

lark. The peer reviewer referenced the trend analysis that is available via the BBS

website for the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR) for the

horned lark; although data are not available at the subspecies level, he makes the

assumption that as the streaked horned lark is the only breeding subspecies of the horned

lark in western Oregon, and that horned lark counts from that BCR can be reasonably

interpreted as counts of the streaked horned lark. From his analysis of the BBS data, he

concludes that the Willamette Valley population of the streaked horned lark is declining

at a rate of about 5 percent per year.

In addition, the peer reviewer conducted his own analysis of five individual BBS

routes in the Willamette Valley. He found that two routes had increasing trends (Scio

and Salem), and three had declining trends (Adair, Dayton, and McMinnville). He states

that larks were first detected on BBS routes in the Willamette Valley in 1971, and their

numbers began declining in 1989. He used a 5-year moving average to show a

“smoothed out” presentation of the data. He particularly focused on the Adair BBS route,

which had the most significant declining trend; in three 5-year periods in the Adair BBS

route data, the route had high numbers of larks in the 1970s, lower numbers in the late

1980s through early 1990s, and then substantially lower numbers in the 2000s. The peer

51

reviewer concluded that the streaked horned lark population in the Willamette Valley has

been declining steadily since the early 1990s.

The peer reviewer asserted that our failure to examine the BBS data is highly

relevant because one of the key factors used in the determination of threatened rather than

endangered status was the perceived stability of lark populations in the Willamette

Valley, based on the repeated ODFW roadside surveys in 1996 and 2008, and studies of

lark populations at “protected” sites (William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge and

Corvallis Municipal Airport).

Our response: In order to evaluate this new analysis of the Breeding Bird Survey

data, we requested assistance from scientists at the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, which manages the BBS data. USGS agreed with the assertion that the BBS

analysis includes all subspecies of horned larks in the Northern Pacific Rainforest BCR,

and consequently, with no other horned larks breeding in the area, that the trends for this

BCR are equivalent to the trends for the streaked horned lark. However, in general,

USGS indicated that the peer reviewer failed to acknowledge the high level of

uncertainty of his conclusions given the small sample sizes, high variance, and potential

for observer bias in the raw BBS data. USGS noted that the peer reviewer correctly

described the patterns of population change shown in the BBS data, but USGS urges

caution in the interpretation of trends with small sample sizes such as that available for

the Northern Pacific Rainforest BCR. The BBS website guidelines for credibility

indicate that this should be noted as a deficiency. USGS also pointed out that there is an

52

indication of observer bias in the Adair route data, which the peer reviewer used as the

strongest indicator of declining population. USGS notes that there is indeed a decline in

numbers, but that the most dramatic declines occurred during the transition between the

second and third observer on the route; when observer #3 took over after a gap of 14

years (1992-2006), markedly fewer streaked horned larks were observed. Given this

information, it is difficult to ascertain how much of the observed decline is real, and how

much of the apparent decline may be biased by a change in observers. Therefore,

although the peer reviewer has provided us with an analysis that raises some questions

about the population trend of the streaked horned lark in the Willamette Valley, we do

not feel these data are sufficiently reliable to alter our conclusion regarding the status of

the subspecies.

We also note that the peer reviewer’s analysis of the steady decline in streaked

horned lark detections since the early 1990s correlates with the beginning of the field

burning restrictions implemented by the Oregon Department of Agriculture, which we

noted earlier in this document. Prior to 1990, about 250,000 ac (101,170 ha) of grass

seed fields in the Willamette Valley were burned each year. Public health and safety

issues (triggered by a catastrophic traffic accident on Interstate 5 caused by smoke from

field burning that obscured the road, resulting in 7 deaths and 38 injuries) resulted in a

decision by the Oregon legislature to order gradual reductions in field burning beginning

in 1991. By 2009, field burning was essentially banned in the Willamette Valley, with

the exception of a limited area in the northeastern portion of the valley, where the

practice is allowed only for specific types of perennial grasses, or fields on highly

erodible steep lands (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and Oregon

53

Department of Agriculture 2011, p. 1). Another peer reviewer commented on the affinity

of larks for burned areas, as evidenced by use of recently burned habitats at JBLM. We

will pursue this issue in recovery planning for the streaked horned lark. We believe that

some of the observed declines lark detections in the BBS data are attributable to the

reduction of highly suitable burned habitats due to the field burning ban. As the ban is

now fully in effect, the rate of decline as noted in BBS observations of streaked horned

larks is not expected to continue at the previously noted rate.

In summary, the peer reviewer presented new information about the declining

population of streaked horned larks in the Willamette Valley, and we appreciate the

reviewer’s efforts to present us with an alternative analysis of the available data. This

information provides a more complete picture of the status of the subspecies, but based

upon our evaluation, with assistance from scientists at USGS who are expert in analysis

of BBS data, we believe the streaked horned lark still meets the definition of threatened

rather than endangered. The Act defines a threatened species as one which is likely to

become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a

significant portion of its range. An endangered species is defined as any species which is

in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Given that

streaked horned larks still occur in many locations across a large area of the Willamette

Valley, and that some of these sites harbor large populations, we agree that the streaked

horned lark has declined and may be continuing to decline, but listing as threatened

remains appropriate, as the best available scientific and commercial data do not indicate

that extinction of the species is imminent.

54

(12) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that it would be useful to discuss

the potential reasons that the Washington population of streaked horned larks appears to

be declining and the Oregon population appears more stable. The peer reviewer noticed

that three of the areas proposed as critical habitat in Oregon are on National Wildlife

Refuges where they benefit from active management, and asked if there might also be

some other sites in Oregon that are being managed for other species in a way that benefits

streaked horned larks.

Our response: We have augmented the discussion of the population trends in

Oregon and Washington in the text of this final rule. As to the issue of why there are

more streaked horned larks, or if the population trend is different in Oregon versus

Washington, we do not have any additional information at this time to answer those

questions. It may be that there is simply more open land in the Willamette Valley in

Oregon, and the valley’s large agricultural industry provides the frequent disturbance

regime that creates the habitat structure needed by larks. We will evaluate these issues

during the recovery planning process for the streaked horned lark.

(13) Comment: One peer reviewer and one other commenter believed our

approach to listing the streaked horned lark would not result in sufficient protections to

acheive recovery. In particular, the peer reviewer believed that the combination of

threatened status, our promulgation of a special rule for agricultural activities and wildlife

hazard management at airports, and a somewhat limited critical habitat designation would

55

result in inadequate protection for the streaked horned lark. The commenter stated that

he believes we put too much effort put into alleviating potential conflicts with land

managers rather than focusing on measures to ensure conservation of the streaked horned

lark, and that this approach will be inadequate to move the species on a trajectory away

from the need for listing.

Our response: Our determination that the streaked horned lark is threatened rests

on our application of the scientific data to the Act’s definition of a threatened species, and

not on our expectations about the best means to conserve the species. Regarding the

reviewer’s comment with respect to the proposed 4(d) special rule and proposed critical

habitat, we believe it is important to recognize that listing, critical habitat designation,

and section 4(d) of the Act are part of the suite of tools that the Service has available to

conserve listed species, but do not in and of themselves conserve the species. Once a

species is listed as either endangered or threatened, the Act provides many tools to

advance the conservation of listed species; available tools include recovery planning

under section 4 of the Act, interagency cooperation and consultation under section 7,

grants to the states under section 6, and safe harbor agreements and habitat conservation

plans under section 10. The streaked horned lark is an unusual case in that nearly all of

its existing habitats have been created by industrial land uses (e.g., agriculture, airport

maintenance, dredge spoil disposal), in which creation of lark habitat is not the intended

purpose. Long experience in working with commercial and industrial partners have

shown us that a more collaborative approach, rather than a strictly regulatory one, will be

more effective in recovering streaked horned larks on private lands. We expect that the

56

conservation program for the streaked horned lark will take advantage of all of the

creativity and flexibility offered by the Act.

(14) Comment: One peer reviewer and several other commenters stated that the

proposed 4(d) rule for streaked horned lark is too broad, particularly the portion that

exempts take associated with routine agricultural activities on non-federal lands in the

Willamette Valley. The commenters felt that this exemption is inappropriate and does

not contribute to conservation of the species. The commenters suggested that we should

eliminate the special rule, and instead use other regulatory mechanisms (e.g., candidate

conservation agreements with assurances, habitat conservation plans, and safe harbor

agreements) to ensure the creation of habitat for larks on agricultural lands.

Our response: The purpose of the 4(d) special rule is to recognize the larger

conservation value of maintaining existing farmland habitats that support streaked horned

larks, even though some farming activities may adversely affect the species. Activities

likely to occur in those landscapes, should ongoing agricultural activities cease, such as

suburban development or transition to orchards and nursery stock, would permanently

remove habitat essential to the streaked horned lark. We believe that exempting take as

the result of agricultural activities described in the special rule is necessary and advisable

to provide for the conservation of streaked horned larks by helping to ensure the

maintenance of those beneficial land uses that provide habitat used by the subspecies.

57

In the 40 years since the passage of the Act, the Service has learned that relying

on regulation alone is not an effective means for engaging private landowners in

endangered species conservation. On the agricultural lands in the Willamette Valley,

habitat for streaked horned larks would not exist but for the activities of private

landowners. We believe that, in certain instances, easing the general take prohibitions on

non-federal agricultural lands may encourage continued land uses that provide an overall

benefit to the species. We also believe that such a special rule will promote the

conservation efforts and private lands partnerships critical for species recovery (Bean and

Wilcove 1997, pp. 1–2). We believe that it is appropriate to use the flexibility offered by

the Act to recognize the important contributions made by the agricultural community to

the creation of suitable habitat for streaked horned larks, and to encourage them to

continue to do so, rather than to see them switch to other crops or land uses to avoid the

real or perceived burden of the regulations associated with listed species. We

acknowledge that the agricultural activities covered in the 4(d) rule are broad. We

modeled this special rule on the similar special rules promulgated for the California tiger

salamander (Ambystoma californiense) (69 FR 47212; August 4, 2004) and California

red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) (71 FR 19244; April 13, 2006), two species

which also depend on the availability of agricultural lands for habitat in large portions of

their ranges. As we stated in the proposed rule, we believe that in the long term, it is a

benefit to the streaked horned lark to maintain those aspects of the Willamette Valley’s

agricultural landscape that can aid in the recovery of the species. We believe the special

rule will further conservation of the species by discouraging conversions of the

agricultural landscape into crops or other land uses unsuitable for the streaked horned

58

lark; our objective is to allow landowners to continue managing the landscape in ways

that meet the needs of their operations while simultaneously providing suitable habitat for

the streaked horned lark. It is important to note, however, that the 4(d) special rule is just

one tool we will use to maintain habitat for larks on agricultural lands in the Willamette

Valley. We hope to engage the agricultural community in education and outreach efforts;

we will also use a variety of other incentive programs to engage private landowners who

are willing to do more to conserve streaked horned larks on their lands.

(15) Comment: One peer reviewer asked us to modify the proposed 4(d) special

rule to include timing restrictions on covered activities to minimize disturbances to

nesting streaked horned larks.

Our response: Our purpose in promulgating a special rule to exempt take

associated with activities that inadvertently create habitat for the streaked horned lark is

to allow landowners to continue those activities without additional regulation. We

believe that imposing a timing restriction would likely reduce the utility of the special

rule for land managers, and could have the unintended side effect of causing landowners

to discontinue their habitat creation activities. Accordingly, we have not modified the

special rule to include timing restrictions; however, we intend to offer education and

assistance to landowners to help them protect and increase the populations of larks on

their lands, if they are amenable.

Comments from States

59

Comments we received from States regarding the proposal to list the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark are addressed below. We received

comments from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Washington

Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), and Washington State Department of

Transportation (WSDOT) related to biological information, threats, critical habitat

exclusions, the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms, and recommendations for the

management of habitat.

The agencies provided a number of recommended technical corrections or edits to

the proposed listing of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark.

We have evaluated and incorporated this information into this final rule when and where

appropriate to clarify this final listing rule. In instances where the Service may have

disagreed with an interpretation of the technical information that was provided, we have

responded to the State directly.

(16) Comment: WDFW encouraged the Service to assist the State with

alternative methods of achieving the conservation and recovery of the species, including

programmatic safe harbor agreements, habitat conservation plans, conservation banks, or

other incentive-based partnerships.

Our response: The Service appreciates our strong conservation partnership with

the State of Washington, and will give full consideration to these ideas as we develop the

60

recovery plans for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark. Such

conservation measures are outside of the scope of the present rulemaking, however,

which is restricted to the question of whether the species meet the definition of an

endangered or threatened species, and should be listed under the authority of the Act.

(17) Comment: WDFW was concerned that allowing any timeframe for mowing

in Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat could crush butterfly larvae as well as their host

plants.

Our response: It is our understanding that when larvae are in diapause they are

usually deep in the vegetation, or within the soil itself. At the time larvae are in diapause,

most of the host plant (except narrow-leaf plantain) and nectar food resources are

dormant. It is possible to do considerable management on prairies without harm to the

target conservation species. Our recommendation for habitat management in occupied

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat is to mow high during diapause to avoid harm to

larvae and to avoid destruction to larval host plants, including Plantago. For more

information on recommended best prairie management practices, please contact the

Washington Fish and Wildlife Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a copy of

the Prairie Landowner Guide for Western Washington (see ADDRESSES).

(18) Comment: WDNR recommended that we consider promulgating a 4(d)

special rule to exempt take of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly associated with habitat

restoration and maintenance activities.

61

Our response: Under section 4(d) of the Act, a special rule may be promulgated

only for threatened species. Our review of the best scientific and commercial data

available indicates that the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is in danger of extinction

throughout its range, and we are listing the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly as endangered;

therefore, a 4(d) special rule is not an available option for this subspecies. There are

many other tools provided by the Act that we can use to work with landowners interested

in habitat restoration for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, including safe harbor

agreements, section 7 consultation, and habitat conservation plans. We will work with

WDNR and other partners to assess the full array of conservation tools available and

determine those that may be most appropriate for the particular circumstance under

consideration.

(19) Comment: WDNR expressed concern that the safe use of pesticides to

control nonnative, invasive insects, such as gypsy moths, may be impacted by the listing

of and designation of critical habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly.

Our response: We do not see the use of pesticides use in general to be an adverse

impact to Taylor's checkerspot butterflies unless the subspecies is directly exposed to the

pesticides. The Service does not anticipate the need for pesticide spraying on habitat

occupied by Taylor's checkerspot butterflies. However, if pesticide were to be sprayed in

areas where pesticide drift would expose Taylor's checkerspot butterflies to the

pesticide(s), then we would be concerned with their application in these situations. The

62

Service acknowledges the use of pesticides as harmful to the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly at all life stages. We specifically discourage the use of insecticides such as

Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki (BtK) in forested areas adjacent to Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly habitat. This insecticide, which is used for harmful defoliators like

gypsy moth and spruce budworm, has been implicated in the loss of three populations of

the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly in Pierce County, Washington, during the early 1990s,

when it was applied adjacent to Taylor's checkerspot butterfly habitat.

(20) Comment: WSDOT requested that we expand the coverage offered by the

special rule for the streaked horned lark to include roadside management activities that

are similar to those proposed for airports and agricultural operations. They specifically

requested coverage for vegetation management of roadside rights-of-way, including

mechanical mowing, weed control, and woody vegetation control; the commenter stated

that these vegetation management activities are consistent with the activities covered on

airports and agricultural lands, and would provide suitable streaked horned lark habitat

along highways and roadside rights-of-way.

Our response: We are currently unaware of any substantial lark use along road

right-of-ways with the exception of those bordering agricultural areas. Roadside

management activities present a variety of site-specific issues, which are better addressed

at the individual site level. For actions with a Federal nexus, we believe review and

coverage of incidental take under section 7 is more appropriate. For activities along State

highways that could cause take of streaked horned larks, other programs would be

63

appropriate to provide incidental take coverage, such as a habitat conservation plan

(HCP) under section 10 of the Act. While encouraging the utilization of conservation

programs such as development of HCPs, the final rule includes a provision for coverage

of incidental take under the 4(d) special rule during activities aimed at the control of

noxious weeds (See: Noxious Weed Control on Non-Federal Lands).

Comments from Federal Agencies

(21) Comment: The Natural Resources Conservation Service asked how the

special rule would affect farmers who are already implementing conservation practices

on their lands. In addition, the Oregon Farm Bureau asked for more specific information

on the agricultural activities covered in the special rule, and requested that we make the

rule more consistent with Oregon farming practices as described by the Oregon State

Legislature. These commenters asked for definitions of the terms used in the draft

special rule, including: (1) “routine” as it applies to seasonal farming and ranching

activities, (2) “normally acceptable and established levels of livestock grazing,” and (3)

the scope of the term “irrigation.”

Our response: The special rule for routine agricultural practices is intended to

promote land uses that are compatible with the conservation of streaked horned larks on

private lands with no Federal agency involvement. If a landowner wishes to participate

in any of the wildlife conservation incentive programs, such as those offered by the

Natural Resources Conservation Service, then those activities would need to be reviewed

64

in interagency consultation under section 7 of the Act between the Service and the

Federal action agency involved in the conservation program if the action may affect

streaked horned larks. If a private landowner wishes to implement conservation actions

for streaked horned larks without Federal agency involvement, and if those activities

have a net benefit to the streaked horned lark, then incidental take associated with the

action may be authorized through a safe harbor agreement.

The special rule to exempt common agricultural activities is intended to promote

land use practices that are compatible with the creation of suitable habitat for streaked

horned larks. We recognize that farming is a dynamic process, which requires the ability

to adapt to changing environmental and economic conditions. We have revised the

language in the special rule to conform to farming standards established by the Oregon

State Legislature in the Oregon Revised Statutes dealing with agricultural practices (ORS

section 30.930). We have clarified the language in the special rule, and revised the list of

covered activities. Activities covered include, but are not limited to: Planting, harvesting,

rotation, mowing, tilling, discing, burning, and herbicide application to crops; normal

transportation activities, and repair and maintenance of unimproved farm roads and

graveled margins of rural roads; livestock grazing according to normally acceptable and

established levels; hazing of geese or predators; and maintenance of irrigation and

drainage systems. These activities are those that are routinely implemented on farm lands

in the Willamette Valley, and inadvertently provide conservation benefits to the streaked

horned lark. The agricultural activities listed in this document are merely examples of

practices that we consider to be routine to managing an active farming operation. Our

65

intention is not to limit activities that may be necessary to the operation of a farm, but to

clarify that “take” of the listed species is not prohibited when engaging in the identified

activities. For further discussion, see the Special Rule section below.

Comments from the Public

(22) Comment: Several commenters provided minor technical corrections or

edits to the proposal, and in some cases additional or updated information regarding the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark.

Our response: We have evaluated and incorporated this information into this

final rule when and where appropriate to clarify the final rule. In instances where the

Service may have disagreed with an interpretation of the technical information that was

provided, we have responded under separate comments.

(23) Comment: One commenter disagreed with our description of the flight

period for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. We state that the flight period extends into

early July and the commenter believes it should only be into June.

Our response: The flight period for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly varies

widely over its occupied range. On occupied sites located on the north Olympic

Peninsula the observed adult flight period for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly extends

into July (Severns and Grossball 2011, p. 71).

66

(24) Comment: One commenter stated that just because habitat is suitable for the

species of concern does not mean that the entire prairie was historically occupied.

Another commenter asked whether we should even try to reverse the loss of historical

prairie habitat available for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned

lark given that the ecosystem is now changed and implementing restoration efforts would

potentially impact other species that now occupy these habitats.

Our response: The proportion of prairie habitat lost (greater than 90 percent) and

the fragmentation of what remains has created the necessity for the conservation of lands

that can presently support the recovery of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the

streaked horned lark. The goal of the Service is to conserve suitable habitat in a

landscape context that will lead to the recovery of the listed species. As discussed in our

response to Comment 13, the Act provides a suite of various conservation tools to

achieve this goal. It is not a reasonable assumption to consider the entire prairie

landscape at any given prairie would be completely occupied by the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly or by the streaked horned lark. In the case of the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly,because of their sedentary nature and their ability to form metapopulation

structure on large landscapes, we would be inclined to believe that, even on large

landscapes, available habitat would be used disproportionately, leading to a patchy

distribution of the subspecies. We employ a comprehensive approach to recovery

planning, and do consider the needs of other species beyond the subject listed species in

the process of crafting recovery strategies.

67

(25) Comment: One commenter suggested the Service should provide blanket,

enduring authorization for incidental take for the streaked horned lark on non-federal

land, such as through a safe harbor agreement between the Service and State field offices,

with zero baseline and no requirements for participation.

Our response: The 4(d) special rule addresses those categories of activities for

which the Service believes a broad exemption from the take prohibitions under the Act is

necessary and advisable for the conservation of the streaked horned lark. Any other

incidental take authorizations will be addressed through future permitting processes under

section 10 of the Act. As noted in earlier responses, we encourage our conservation

partners to take advantage of the full suite of conservation tools available to aid in the

recovery of listed species.

(26) Comment: One commenter argued that the observed contraction of the

streaked horned lark’s range justifies listing as endangered. Another commenter

suggested the streaked horned lark should not be listed because we should consider the

full range of potential habitat for the subspecies.

Our response: Consideration of the current and historical range of a species is

only one aspect that is considered in the analysis to determine if a species should be listed

as an endangered or a threatened species; the imminence and magnitude of threats acting

on the species are more important to the assessment of a species’ status. We

68

acknowledge that the streaked horned lark’s range has contracted substantially over the

last century. However, although we consider the loss of historical range to be

informative to our determination, we base our conclusion on whether a species is

presently in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future on

the status of the species at the time of our determination. We have good information that

the streaked horned lark population is declining in Washington, but the population in

Oregon is relatively large, has abundant habitat, and appears to be either relatively stable

or declining far more slowly than the population in Washington, indicating that listing as

threatened is most appropriate. Many species occupy only a portion of their historical

ranges, but the Act does not require that species be restored to their entire historical

ranges to be considered secure or recovered; delisting requires only that the species no

longer meets the definition of an endangered or a threatened species under the Act.

(27) Comment: One commenter stated that the streaked horned lark meets the

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) standard for endangered

(fewer than 2,500 mature individuals, and either a decline of at least 20 percent within 5

years or continuing decline, and no subpopulation estimated to contain more than 250

mature individuals). The commenter pointed out that the population in Washington is

clearly declining and the largest known subpopulation at the Corvallis Municipal Airport

consists of fewer than 250 individuals.

Our response: The Service does not use a one-size-fits-all standard for

determination of endangered or threatened status, and the IUCN standard of endangered

69

does not pertain to the definition provided under the Act. The Act directs us to consider

the range of threats a species faces, and to make a determination of status based on the

total impact of those threats. Based upon our evaluation of the threats to the streaked

horned lark, we have determined it is a threatened species as defined by the Act.

(28) Comment: One commenter stated that the streaked horned lark does not

deserve special protections in Oregon, and listing as threatened is not warranted, citing

our statements about the apparent stability of the population in the Willamette Valley.

The commenter believes we failed to demonstrate that the streaked horned lark is

declining or that such declines are likely to occur.

Our response: Our analysis of the best scientific and commercial data available

indicates that the streaked horned lark is declining throughout its range. The decline is

most apparent in the Puget lowlands of Washington, but the population in Oregon is also

declining, though at a less pronounced rate. In this final rule, we have clarified the

information regarding the status of the streaked horned lark in the Willamette Valley, and

why we believe the subspecies warrants listing as a threatened species under the Act

across its range.

(29) Comment: One commenter stated that we should have been clearer

regarding the limits of the recent surveys for streaked horned larks in the Willamette

Valley. The commenter suggested that most of the suitable habitat on private lands in the

70

Willamette Valley has been surveyed only from public rights-of-way, and that few, if

any, large blocks of private farmland have been adequately surveyed for larks.

Our response: We acknowledge in this final rule that most surveys for streaked

horned larks on private lands in the Willamette Valley have been conducted from

roadsides. The sites that have been well surveyed are those in public ownership or

private lands with conservation easements. We have clearly stated that we do not have a

complete picture of the streaked horned lark’s distribution or habitat use. However, the

Act requires us to use the best scientific and commercial data available, and we have used

the best available data to support our determination that the streaked horned lark meets

the definition of a threatened species under the Act.

(30) Comment: One commenter suggested that the Service needs to evaluate

recreation and its associated effects (attraction of potential predators) as a threat to the

streaked horned lark.

Our response: As discussed in the proposed rule, recreational activities can pose

both direct and indirect threats to streaked horned larks. Activities such as horseback

riding, boating, biking, dog walking, ATV use, and model airplane flying can result in the

loss of nests through crushing of chicks or eggs and nest abandonment associated with

disturbance of adults. Indirect effects of recreational activities include increased risk of

nest failure when incubating or when brooding adults are flushed from nests and human

activities (such as leaving trash and food on site) attract corvids to nesting areas. Corvids

71

have been routinely documented depredating nests of streaked horned larks and are

considered significant nest predators. The Service is working with resource staff at

JBLM to reduce recreational impacts to the streaked horned lark at several prairies on

base by limiting civilian access during the nesting season and by posting signs restricting

public access at several prairies and nesting areas along the Washington Coast. Because

enforcement of seasonal closures and monitoring of recreational activities at sites that are

not posted (e.g., boating and camping on the Columbia River islands, ATV use on port

properties, and dispersed recreational activities in open areas) is difficult and often

ineffective, recreational activities are a potential threat to the streaked horned lark.

(31) Comment: One commenter stated that we failed to show that Oregon’s

regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the streaked horned lark. The

commenter believes that the threat of loss of suitable habitats is not likely to be realized

because Goals 3 and 5 of Oregon’s Statewide Planning Program protect agricultural lands

and open spaces, and these mechanisms will be sufficient to provide adequate habitat for

streaked horned larks on agricultural lands in the Willamette Valley.

Our response: Oregon has a strong Statewide program for land use planning,

which established 19 goals to protect various aspects of Oregon’s environment. Goal 3

addresses preservation of agricultural lands; Goal 5 directs local governments to adopt

programs to protect natural resources and conserve scenic, historic, and open space

resources. Most of the goals are accompanied by guidelines, which are suggestions about

how a goal may be applied; however, these guidelines are purely voluntary and not

72

mandatory. Goal 3 has been effective in preserving agriculture in the Willamette Valley,

but the guidelines merely direct counties to preserve farmland and open space, but do not

specifically call for the maintenance of existing agricultural crops. Transition from grass

seed fields to other agricultural types, such as nursery stock or wheat, would be consistent

with Goal 3, and yet would result in habitat loss for the streaked horned lark. Similarly,

Goal 5 promotes the protection and conservation of open space and wildlife habitats, but

does not specifically require the maintenance of existing land use types that support the

streaked horned lark. We conclude that Oregon’s Statewide planning goals and

guidelines contribute to protecting habitats for larks in the Willamette Valley, but are not

sufficient to protect or maintain habitat on agricultural lands for the long-term

sustainability of streaked horned lark populations.

(32) Comment: One commenter stated that our analysis of Factor E (other natural

and manmade factors affecting the subspecies’ existence), particularly the status of the

small population of streaked horned larks on the Puget prairies, supports an endangered

listing.

Our response: As we acknowledge in this final rule, populations of the streaked

horned lark in the State of Washington are small and declining at a faster rate than those

in Oregon. However, we evaluated the status of the streaked horned lark at the scale of

the subspecies as a whole, and as we stated in our analysis, the population of the streaked

horned lark in the Willamette Valley is larger, has more habitat available, and appears to

be more secure than the small population in Washington. Thus, although the status of the

73

subspecies is not stable and secure, we do not consider the subspecies in its entirety to be

in danger of extinction at this time, as we anticipate the persistence of the streaked horned

lark in some portions of its range, at least for the foreseeable future. Threats acting upon

the subspecies across its range are, however, such that if they were to continue unabated,

we anticipate the streaked horned lark would become in danger of extinction within the

foreseeable future. Given that the subspecies is not presently in danger of extinction

(endangered), but is likely to become so with the foreseeable future, we conclude that

consideration of all of these factors together with the data that show a declining

population on the Puget prairies warrants a threatened determination for the streaked

horned lark. In addition, as described in this final rule, we considered whether the

Washington population of the streaked horned lark may constitute a separate distinct

population segment (DPS) or a significant portion of the range. We concluded that the

Washington population does not constitute a valid DPS under our DPS policy, and

furthermore that the Washington population does not represent a significant portion of the

range of the subspecies. Based on these analyses, we conclude that threatened status is

most appropriate for the streaked horned lark.

(33) Comment: One commenter stated that the economic and social factors

driving conversion of Willamette Valley farmland to vineyards are likely to continue in

the foreseeable future, and may accelerate as large California wineries are reportedly

investing in Willamette Valley farmlands as a hedge against global climate change. As a

result, the likelihood of a changing agricultural landscape should be recognized in the

listing and critical habitat designation for the streaked horned lark.

74

Our response: The Service does not consider the acquisition of lands by the

viticulture industry to be a threat to streaked horned lark breeding and nesting habitat.

We contacted Dr. William Boggess at Oregon State University's Oregon Wine Research

Institute who described the ideal lands for viticulture as being 300–800 feet (90–240 m)

in elevation, on a slope with a southern or western aspect. These optimal viticulture soils

are shallow and nutrient poor, above the flood plain or on eroded rocky soils. These ideal

conditions for grapes are not similar in characteristic to habitats preferred by the streaked

horned lark. As such, we do not consider viticulture a current or future threat to the

streaked horned lark.

(34) Comment: One commenter stated that the streaked horned lark faces

continued threats to habitats and populations, including conversion of prairie and

grassland, continued dumping of dredged spoils, military operations, airport

development, and off-road vehicle recreation.

Our response: As we discussed in the text of this final rule, many of these

activities have the potential to both benefit and pose a threat to the streaked horned lark.

Many of the issues the commenter cites as threats to the streaked horned lark’s habitat

may actually be essential to the continued creation of habitat for the bird, depending on

how they are conducted; the natural processes that formerly created habitat for the

streaked horned lark no longer operate, and so these industrial activities create almost the

only usable habitats available to the bird. Without the presence of dredge spoil islands,

75

military reserves, agriculture, and airports, there would be virtually no habitat left for the

streaked horned lark. The challenge will be to work with landowners to ensure these

activities are implemented in ways that benefit the subspecies as well as work for the

landowner as we work to recover the streaked horned lark. See also our response to

Comment 13.

(35) Comment: Several commenters asked that the Service fully consider the

effect of the 20-year old Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) with respect

to both direction and growth into urban areas while protecting rural areas. Commenters

believed the GMA protects threatened species and habitat through comprehensive

regulations and planning that are integrated with the other mandates of the law. One

commenter suggested that listings under the Act compel counties to identify critical areas

and conserve habitat for listed species in order to receive monetary incentives, and work

against existing local and State requirements such as the GMA.

Our response: The Service fully considered the effect of the Washington State

GMA in reviewing the potential inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The

GMA provides landscape-scale planning and conservation policies and tools, while the

Act focuses on protection for species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Each

authority plays an important role in achieving our shared goals for prairie habitat and

species conservation; however, in this case, implementation to date of the GMA alone

has not provided enough certainty of future conservation for the species to fully address

76

the threats identified in the proposed rule, and this final rule, to list the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark under the Act. The application of the

GMA is not uniform across the State and as such does not supply protection adequate to

preclude the listing of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or the streaked horned lark. The

Service works with not only counties, but a broad range of entities, using a wide variety

of incentive-based programs to balance the conservation needs of listed species with the

objectives of entities that voluntarily choose to work with us. We work with these

partners to meet the conservation needs for federally listed species while striving to be

consistent with existing State or local requirements, such as Washington State’s GMA.

(36) Comment: One commenter said that streaked horned larks are insufficiently

protected by existing regulatory mechanisms, and the proposed 4(d) special rule

substantially weakens protections for the streaked horned lark.

Our response: In our analysis of Factor D (the inadequacy of existing regulatory

mechanisms), we found that existing regulatory mechanisms are not sufficient to protect

the streaked horned lark. However, we believe that promulgation of a special rule under

section 4(d) of the Act is necessary and advisable to provide for conservation of the

subspecies because its habitat is inadvertently created by airport managers and

agricultural landowners. One of our goals for recovering listed species on private lands is

to find ways to help landowners view these species on their lands as an asset rather than a

legal or economic liability. This is especially important when dealing with an early-

successional dependent (sub)species such as the streaked horned lark that exhibits a

77

temporary or intermittent presence on those lands, and when those lands require

discretionary management treatments by the landowner to maintain their suitability or

attractiveness for the streaked horned lark. The continued availability of these habitats on

private lands is essential to the persistence of the streaked horned lark. With the special

rule, we are seeking to encourage private landowners to be willing to accommodate or

attract streaked horned larks, and to discourage any landowner’s desire to avoid having

streaked horned larks on their property, and managing the property for the benefit of the

streaked horned lark.

(37) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that some activities covered

under the proposed special rule for airports and agricultural lands could be carried to the

point that they eliminate streaked horned larks on a site, for example, intensive mowing

or hazing by falcons.

Our response: Our purpose in developing the special rule for airports and

agricultural lands is to encourage the continuation of practices that inadvertently create

habitat for the streaked horned lark. We acknowledge that some of those activities may

take larks, which is why a special rule is needed, but the availability of the 4(d) special

rule should eliminate the incentive to remove larks from airports or agricultural lands to

avoid violation of the Act. However, the concern that land managers could inadvertently

eliminate streaked horned larks from a site is valid, and we will work with land managers

to identify opportunities to conserve larks on sites and for activities that are covered by

the special rule.

78

(38) Comment: One commenter recommended that the proposed special rule for

the streaked horned lark be expanded to cover the actions of non-federal entities engaged

in dredging operations that deposit materials that create upland lark habitat on the lower

Columbia River.

Our Response: Under the 4(d) special rule, take of the streaked horned lark

caused by routine agricultural activities, wildlife hazard management programs at civilian

airports, and noxious weed control activities is exempt from the prohibitions of section 9

of the Act. The purpose of exempting these activities is to encourage activities by non-

Federal entities that inadvertently create lark habitat. Dredge disposal clearly has the

potential to create habitat for larks, but any action that involves dredging in the Columbia

River would have a Federal nexus because it requires authorization from the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (Corps). Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, it is the responsibility of

all Federal agencies to insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the

agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or

threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated

critical habitat. Since the Corps will be required to consult with the Service under section

7 of the Act for dredging operations that may affect the streaked horned lark, those

activities and any associated take of streaked horned larks will be appropriately addressed

in section 7 consultation between the Corps and the Service.

79

(39) Comment: Some commenters asked for a special rule under section 4(d) of

the Act for restoration actions, including landfill closure and maintenance. The

commenters stated that without a 4(d) special rule allowing active habitat management,

agencies and land stewards would not be able to maintain needed habitat conditions at

sites that could support streaked horned larks. The commenters requested coverage in a

special rule for activities including, but not limited to: Seeding and planting, haying,

mowing, tilling, disking, harrowing, and herbicide application; prescribed burning;

hydrologic management; livestock grazing; routine management and maintenance of

infrastructure, such as gates, fences, water control structures, property boundary markers,

and property surveys; monitoring of vegetation and animals; and applied or other

research, such as vocal attraction experiments, vegetation manipulations, predator

surveys, and other work.

Our response: The purpose of the 4(d) special rule for agriculture, airports, and

noxious weed control is to allow take of streaked horned larks for activities that

inadvertently create habitat for the birds. Our logic in developing this special rule is that,

without the exemption from take offered by the 4(d) special rule, these landowners might

decide not to take actions that create or maintain important habitat for streaked horned

larks, in order to avoid the potential violation of the Act. The restoration and habitat

creation activities discussed in the comment above would be implemented specifically to

enhance habitat for streaked horned larks or other prairie species. We believe it is

appropriate to work with these agencies and land stewards using other programs offered

by the Act (section 7 consultation, safe harbor agreements, and section 10(a)(1)(B)

80

habitat conservation plans) to maximize the conservation efforts in these programs, and

to offer exemptions from incidental take through options other than a special rule.

(40) Comment: One commenter requested a special rule under section 4(d) of

the Act for park management activities at M. James Gleason Memorial Boat Ramp and

Broughton Beach in Portland; the special rule would include coverage for any take of

streaked horned larks resulting from repair and maintenance of existing infrastructure,

and facility improvements that are underway now. The commenter also asked for a

special rule that allows take associated with recreational use of the site by the public,

including events such as the Polar Bear Plunge, fishing from boats and from shore,

picnicking, hiking, dog walking, bird watching, and other customary passive recreation.

Our response: As we stated earlier, we have used the option to promulgate a

special rule under section 4(d) of the Act specifically for activities that inadvertently

create habitat for streaked horned larks (i.e., wildlife hazard management at airports,

activities on agricultural lands in the Willamette Valley, and noxious weed control on

non-federal lands). The activities listed in the comment do not create habitat for the

streaked horned lark or otherwise benefit the species, and are more appropriately covered

under other programs of the Act that result in exemptions from incidental take of a listed

species, including consultation pursuant to section 7 or permitting pursuant to section 10,

if take of larks as a result of these activities is anticipated.

81

(41) Comment: One commenter asked us to include an offer of landowner

assistance and education in the special rule.

Our response: These activities (landowner assistance and education) do not cause

take, and so are not included in the special rule exempting certain activities from the

prohibitions on taking; we have therefore not amended the special rule to include them.

We acknowledge, however, that outreach to landowners will be an important component

of streaked horned lark conservation and recovery, and we will offer landowner

assistance and education to airport managers and agricultural landowners through the

various conservation tools and incentive programs offered by the Act.

(42) Comment: Numerous commenters asked us to add to the activities covered

under the 4(d) special rule for airports on non-federal lands, or to allow more flexibility

in the activities covered. Commenters essentially asked for coverage for all routine

activities at airports, and specifically asked for the 4(d) special rule to cover the following

activities: Low-level military training operations; pest and invasive species control;

stockpiling and staging areas for construction projects; vehicle access routes;

management and operations of storm water conveyance, treatment facilities, and flow-

control facilities, including grass seeding, irrigation, mowing, soil augmentation, and

drainage control; spill and other environmental emergency response and associated

remediation, including equipment deployment, product recovery, and soil removal; anti-

icing and de-icing of aircraft and pavements, including chemical and physical methods;

application of herbicides, pesticides, insecticides and other chemical treatment methods;

82

noxious weed control; airport rescue and fire-fighting activities; control and removal of

foreign object debris; airfield taxiway and services; road maintenance, including

pavement repair and replacement, and paint or rubber removal; management of all

marking, signs, and lighting; maintenance of meteorological instruments; management of

obstructions to aircraft operations; and protection and maintenance of navigational aids.

Our response: Airports provide important habitat for streaked horned larks

throughout their range. We developed the 4(d) special rule specifically to cover routine

actions that inadvertently create suitable conditions for larks at airports. The purpose of

the special rule is to encourage the continuation of the practices that have created suitable

habitats for the species. The activities in the list above may be essential for safe airport

operations, but do not generally create habitat for the streaked horned lark. We

understand that airports must perform many of these activities, and some of them may

affect larks; however, the Act provides other appropriate mechanisms for addressing

those activities, and exempting any associated take. For activities at airports with a

Federal nexus (e.g., drainage projects requiring a permit from the Corps under section

404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)), section 7 consultation can provide

the needed coverage for incidental take. For activities without a Federal nexus that may

result in incidental take of the streaked horned lark, we will work with the airports to

cover the activities under section 10 of the Act.

We also note here that we have amended the 4(d) special rule to include noxious

weed control on non-Federal lands. We added this activity to the 4(d) special rule in

response to public comments requesting an exemption from take prohibitions for actions

83

that restore habitats used by the streaked horned lark, but this component of the 4(d)

special rule may also be applicable to some activities at non-Federal airports. The

specific weed control activities covered in the 4(d) special rule are: mowing, herbicide

and fungicide application, fumigation and burning. See the 4(d) special rule at the end of

this document for a complete description of the take exemptions for noxious weed

control.

(43) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed 4(d) special rule for the

streaked horned lark is unlawful because it does not provide for the conservation of the

species. The commenter stated that the Service’s authority to promulgate a 4(d) special

rule is constrained by the requirement that the measures in the special rule be “necessary

and advisable” to provide for the survival and recovery of the species. The commenter

also argued that, for more than 30 years, it has been the policy and practice of the Service

to extend the full protections against take in section 9 to threatened species. Any

departure from this long-standing position must have a valid conservation purpose.

Our response: We developed the 4(d) special rule for the streaked horned lark

consistent with the Act’s requirements that any special rule be necessary and advisable to

provide for the conservation of a species. The rationale for promulgating the special rule

is that, throughout most of its range, streaked horned lark habitat has been inadvertently

created and maintained by industrial land uses. The purpose of the 4(d) special rule is to

encourage landowners to continue to manage lands in a way that creates or maintains

habitat for the streaked horned lark, rather than switch to other land uses or practices that

84

will not support the subspecies. The 4(d) special rule for the streaked horned lark is

consistent with the Service’s long-standing practice to use all the flexibility offered by

the Act under section 4(d) for threatened species.

(44) Comment: One commenter stated that the 4(d) special rule appears to be

geared more toward airport safety than streaked horned lark conservation; the commenter

said, “At its core, the [4(d)] rule has nothing to do with streaked horned lark

conservation.”

Our response: We disagree. The reality is that airports’ wildlife hazard

management programs (which are implemented to create a safe conditions for aviation)

inadvertently create suitable habitat for streaked horned larks. The safe operation of

aircraft requires the same wide-open landscape context needed by streaked horned larks;

the wildlife hazard management practices at airports create the specific habitat

characteristics (low-stature vegetation) desired by larks, as well as a reduced level of

predatory species. We believe that development of a 4(d) special rule to allow the

practices that create or maintain suitable habitat for larks is necessary and advisable to

provide for streaked horned lark conservation.

(45) Comment: One commenter stated that, in the special rule, the Service

acknowledges that some management actions taken at airports are generally beneficial to

larks, but noted that this implies that some activities are not beneficial, and should not be

covered in the rule. For example, the Service fails to explain how “management, repair,

85

and maintenance of roads and runways” benefits larks, or how hazing hazardous wildlife

benefits larks.

Our response: Certain activities covered in the 4(d) special rule are likely neutral

with respect to impacts to streaked horned larks, and these include maintenance and

repair of roads and runways. We included these activities in the list of covered activities

in the special rule so that airport managers would not be confused about their ability to

implement routine maintenance activities and which activities are exempted from the take

prohibitions of the Act. Other activities, such as habitat management and hazing of

hazardous wildlife, clearly benefit the streaked horned lark. Hazing is often directed at

larger, more hazardous wildlife, such as hawks and geese; hazing these species away

from airfields benefits the streaked horned lark by reducing the abundance of predators

(such as hawks) that would otherwise prey on eggs and nestlings.

(46) Comment: One commenter believes the 4(d) special rule for the streaked

horned lark is not an appropriate application of that section of the Act. The commenter

stated that the Act requires section 4(d) to be used to issue regulations to conserve

threatened species; the commenter further points out that the Act defines conservation as

all activities associated with scientific resource management, including research, census,

law enforcement, habitat acquisitions and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and

transplantation. The commenter does not believe that the special rule fits within the

rubric of scientific resource management activities.

86

Our response: When Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act in 1973, it

provided no prohibitions on take of threatened species. However, section 4(d) of the Act

applies to threatened species and was included in the Act to set prohibitions for these

species that are necessary and advisable to provide for their conservation. Such

regulations are intended to encourage activities that will promote conservation of species

and prohibit take as a result of those actions that are not conducive to species

conservation. Our promulgation of a special rule for the streaked horned lark is

consistent with this aspect of the Act, and is necessary to conserve the streaked horned

lark given the unique situation of its dependence on actively managed, industrial

landscapes.

(47) Comment: One commenter stated that the 4(d) special rule for activities at

airports would not benefit the streaked horned lark, because even control and

management of vegetation at airports can harm larks if the activities occur during the

breeding season.

Our response: We agree that some of these activities can harm larks, and will

result in take, which is why a special rule to exempt take as the result of certain activities

is appropriate. These activities (i.e., control and management of vegetation) clearly

benefit the streaked horned lark by creating the appropriate habitat conditions for

breeding. The best evidence of this fact is that, with their existing management practices,

airports currently support larks. Maintenance of these conditions, which must be done

during the bird’s breeding season to ensure aircraft safety, will entail some take of the

87

species; thus the 4(d) special rule allows take in the act of creating and maintaining

suitable habitat for the streaked horned lark.

(48) Comment: One commenter asked us to amend the 4(d) special rule to

include a re-evaluation of the special rule after 5 years to ensure that it is not contributing

to the decline of the streaked horned lark.

Our response: All of our rulemakings are subject to revision, if necessary and

appropriate. In the recovery program for the streaked horned lark, we will track the

population trend, and if the data suggest that the special rule is not benefitting the species,

we would re-evaluate it at that time. In addition, as required by section 4(c)(2) of the

Act, we conduct a review of the status of listed species every 5 years. The reviews assess

each endangered and threatened species to determine whether its status has changed since

the time of its listing or its last status review and whether it should be classified

differently or delisted.

(49) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed listing of the streaked

horned lark could potentially have adverse impacts on aviation safety, and therefore

should be subjected to a formal safety risk assessment in accordance with established

FAA policies and procedures, notably those outlined in FAA Order 5200.11, FAA

Airports (ARP) Safety Management System. They further stated a risk assessment

should consider both the direct hazard posed to aircraft operations at and near airports by

the streaked horned larkand the induced hazards associated with larger predatory wildlife

88

species that the streaked horned lark may attract to the vicinity of the airport, as well as

airfield maintenance activities that could be limited due to a listing.

Our response: FAA policies, including FAA Order 5200.11, do not apply to our

administration of the Act. FAA Order 5200.11, by its own terms, applies only to airports

and FAA personnel. We have no authority under the Act to choose not to list a bird

species that otherwise warrants listing on the grounds that the species poses a threat to

aviation safety. In any event, streaked horned larks are already present on many of the

airports within the range of the species and have been there for some time. The

subspecies occurs on airports largely because management to control hazardous wildlife

has incidentally created and maintains suitable habitat for the streaked horned lark. FAA

regulations require airports to take immediate action to alleviate wildlife hazards

whenever they are detected (14 CFR 139.337). This requirement to maintain airfields

free of wildlife hazards will limit the potential for populations of all birds, including

streaked horned larks, to increase to levels that pose a risk to aviation. The 4(d) special

rule for wildlife hazard management at airports will ensure that airports are not in

violation of the Act when implementing appropriate safety measures. The FAA Order

referenced went into effect on June 1, 2011, and provides guidance for airports to

complete safety risk management plans or approaches by certain timelines. The Service

is willing to assist the FAA and individual airports in determining what, if any,

adjustments need to be made to the safety risk assessments as a result of the listing of the

subspecies.

89

(50) Comment: One commenter stated that larks do not harm airplanes when

they are struck.

Our response: The commenter’s assumption is not supported by the facts. A

recent report verified that an F-15C military aircraft at Portland International Airport

struck a streaked horned lark and the plane sustained damage to an engine (Dove et al.

2013, p. 1). The bird also died, of course.

(51) Comment: One commenter argued that the special rule for airports and

agriculture would not advance the conservation of the streaked horned lark, but is

designed to allow airports and agricultural landowners to continue to operate without

obtaining a permit for take under section 10. The commenter stated that the provisions in

the special rule should be used for section 10 permits, and that the Service should work

with airports throughout the range of the streaked horned lark to create a regional habitat

conservation plan for airports, and work with farmers to develop safe harbor agreements.

Our response: We developed the 4(d) special rule for the streaked horned lark

consistent with the Act’s requirements that any special rule be necessary and advisable to

provide for the conservation of a species. We believe that the special rule appropriately

uses the flexibility of section 4(d) of the Act to allow take of a threatened species. The

foundation of the special rule is that, throughout most of the subspecies’ range, streaked

horned lark habitat is inadvertently created by industrial or agricultural land uses. The

purpose of the 4(d) special rule is to encourage landowners to continue to manage lands

in ways that create habitat for the streaked horned lark, rather than switch to other land

90

uses practices that will not support the subspecies. The safety issue at airports is unique,

and airport managers likely have little room to maneuver in terms of the management

they do; negotiating a section 10 permit with a regional habitat conservation plan is

unlikely to result in greater conservation of larks at airports than can be achieved through

the special rule. In regard to the recommendation to develop safe harbor agreements with

farmers, those agreements are entirely voluntary, and are likely to benefit fewer streaked

horned larks than the 4(d) special rule that would apply to all agricultural activities

automatically. Furthermore, the 4(d) special rule does not preempt the Service from

working with landowners interested in pursuing safe harbor agreements addressing

activities either directly or indirectly associated with agricultural pursuits, especially any

activities intended to attract streaked horned larks to their properties.

(52) Comment: One commenter said that National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) review is required to evaluate alternatives to the 4(d)

special rule for the streaked horned lark.

Our response: The courts have ruled that NEPA does not apply to listing

decisions under section 4(a) of the Act, nor to 4(d) special rules issued concurrent with

listing. See Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F.2d 829 (6th Cir. 1981); and

Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, No. 04-4324, 2005 WL

2000928, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2005).

91

(53) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service must consult under

section 7 of the Act on the effects of the 4(d) special rule on the streaked horned lark to

ensure that the special rule will not jeopardize the continued existence of the subspecies.

The commenter pointed out that the National Marine Fisheries Service has conducted

formal section 7 consultations on the issuance of 4(d) special rules for listed fish.

Our response: The Service believes that section 7 does not apply to the

promulgation of 4(d) special rules. The Service’s determination that a 4(d) special rule is

necessary and advisable to provide for conservation of the species necessarily subsumes a

determination that the rule will not jeopardize the species or adversely modify its critical

habitat. Hence, applying the section 7 consultation procedures to such rulemaking would

be a redundant exercise in paperwork. See Cf. Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657

F.2d 829 (6th Cir. 1981) (NEPA inapplicable to listing decision under section 4 of the

Act, because listing action furthered purposes of NEPA); Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48

F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) (NEPA inapplicable to designation of critical habitat under

section 4 of the Act, because designation furthers goals of NEPA). Moreover, even if

section 7 did apply to the promulgation of a 4(d) special rule, in this case the subspecies

is not yet listed, so the only relevant provision would be section 7(a)(4), which requires

an action agency to confer on any action that is likely to jeopardize, or destroy or

adversely modify the proposed critical habitat of, a species proposed for listing. The

Service has determined that this 4(d) special rule is not likely to jeopardize the streaked

horned lark, nor is it likely to destroy or adversely modify its proposed critical habitat, so

a conference under section 7(a)(4) of the Act is not required.

92

(54) Comment: One commenter noted dredge material placement sites are

human-made or managed features and not “naturally occurring habitat,” and these sites

are specifically created and managed for the placement of dredge materials. The

commenter further raised concern about the presence of streak horned larks limiting full

access to dredge material sites. Another commenter said that placement of dredge

materials should not be considered a threat given the long-term benefit of creation and

maintenance of dredge islands.

Our response: Streaked horned larks commonly use human-made or managed

areas that provide the right conditions and are not limited to “naturally occurring

habitats.” Upland dredge spoil deposit sites, agricultural fields, gravel roads/shoulders,

undeveloped industrial sites, and areas where vegetation is sparse or maintained (such as

at airports) provide suitable conditions and the landscape context that larks need. The

presence of a listed species on these sites does not preclude entities such as airports from

doing business or continuing operations. One option may be for potentially affected

entities to work with the Service on the development of a habitat conservation plan under

section 10 of the Act. A habitat conservation plan authorizes incidental take and provides

landowners long-term assurances from activities that could affect the species or suitable

habitat.

In the absence of trend data, we cannot know whether unmanaged dredge spoils

deposition has had a net positive or negative effect on streaked horned lark population

93

numbers. While creation and maintenance of these dredge islands is critical to the

perpetuation of the subspecies, streaked horned lark population numbers are in decline,

and nest failure due to unregulated dredge deposition is a threat to the subspecies.

(55) Comment: The Port of Olympia asserted that the listing overstates the

threats posed by potential airport development to the streaked horned lark. An interlocal

agreement with WDFW required the airport to set aside areas to be preserved as lark

habitat, and also includes measures to minimize development, retain open space, and

avoid mowing in lark nesting areas and during lark breeding seasons. The airport does

not anticipate development in lark nesting areas over the next 20 years.

Our response: We recognize and appreciate the cooperative effort on the part of

the Port of Olympia to craft the interlocal agreement with WDFW. The interlocal

agreement provides a framework for how development impacts will be addressed and

offset, but it does not address the pace and extent of future development at the Olympia

Airport and does not necessarily provide protection from development in the foreseeable

future.

(56) Comment: One commenter said that we should acknowledge the threats to

streaked horned larks and their habitats from government programs, such as the

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, that encourage tree planting in open areas.

94

Our response: We do not currently have information to suggest that government

tree planting programs pose a threat to the streaked horned lark. However, the purpose of

section 7 of the Act is to ensure that Federal agencies do not fund, authorize, or carry out

activities that that could jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or

adversely modify their designated critical habitat. After this rule is effective (see

DATES), we will work with the Farm Service Agency (the Federal agency that

implements the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program) to ensure that their actions

do not jeopardize the continued existence of the streaked horned lark.

(57) Comment: One commenter stated that Corvallis Municipal Airport has been

declared as “shovel-ready” for commercial development, and that the analysis of listing

factors should include an assessment of the extent to which the proposed commercial

development at Corvallis Airport will impinge upon critical habitat for the streaked

horned lark.

Our response: As we discuss in the final critical habitat designation for the

streaked horned lark, published elsewhere in the Federal Register today, we have

excluded non-Federal airport lands from the designation. However, we agree that future

development at the Corvallis Airport could affect the population of streaked horned larks

that breed at the site. We have added a brief discussion of the issue under Factor A,

below.

95

(58) Comment: Several commenters asked us to amend the special rule to

include take of streaked horned larks resulting from aircraft strikes.

Our response: The fundamental purpose of wildlife hazard mitigation programs

at airports is the minimization of wildlife-aircraft strikes. Streaked horned larks are

paradoxically attracted to the habitat that has been created and maintained at airports as a

result of those management activities to deter other more dangerous wildlife; some

aircraft strikes of larks are probably unavoidable. This take of larks from routine aviation

activities at airports is appropriately exempted under the 4(d) special rule, and we have

therefore modified this final rule accordingly.

(59) Comment: One commenter requested that, under the proposed 4(d) special

rule for the streaked horned lark, we consider covering comparable municipal

government activities. In particular, consideration should be given to the continuing

operation and maintenance, and to (if necessary due to fire or other unforeseen events)

the reconstruction and restoration of, public facilities such as stormwater facilities, water

supply sites (wellheads and springs), and active recreation parks (including athletic fields

utilized by cities but owned by school districts). Such operation and maintenance should

encompass sporting events, planting and mowing, fence and security maintenance,

herbicide and fertilizer application, and similar activities.

Our response: We are not aware of any streaked horned larks nesting on lands

owned and managed by the Cities of Olympia, Lacey, or Tumwater, or on school

96

properties, stormwater facilities, water supply sites, or active recreational parks. These

types of areas do not provide suitable habitat (size, landscape context, and vegetation do

not meet habitat definition) for this subspecies. The 4(d) special rule for streaked horned

lark exempts take under section 9 of the Act associated with routine maintenance

conducted at airports, farming on agricultural lands, and noxious weed control activities

to provide for the conservation of the streaked horned lark.

Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule

We fully considered comments from the public and the peer reviewers on the

proposed rule to develop this final listing of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the

streaked horned lark. This final rule incorporates changes to our proposed listing based

on the comments that we received that are discussed above. We received additional

distribution and trend data for the streaked horned lark, but this information did not alter

the conclusion of our analysis. We made some technical corrections and reevaluated

threats to both subspecies from vehicular mortality. Although our analysis of these

potential threats is different from that in our proposed rule, none of the information

changed our determination that the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly meets the definition of

an endangered species and the streaked horned lark meets the definition of a threatened

species under the Act.

We revised the 4(d) special rule for the streaked horned lark based on public

comments and information we received. The Service has determined that exempting

97

specified agricultural operations in the Willamette Valley of Oregon, rather than

rangewide, as proposed, from the prohibition of take under section 9 of the Act

encourages landowners to continue managing the remaining landscape in ways that meet

the needs of their operation while simultaneously providing for the conservation of the

streaked horned lark. The application of the 4(d) special rule exempting specific

agricultural operations applies only to the Willamette Valley in Oregon because there is

no record of the streaked horned lark utilizing agricultural lands in Washington State,

despite thorough surveys by WDFW.

We revised the 4(d) special rule in response to comments from the public,

whichhelped us refine the covered farming activities. We have clarified the definition of

“normal farming practices” and “normal transportation activities” to be consistent with

relevant Oregon State laws. We also amended the list of covered activities to address

specific agricultural practices in the Willamette Valley that may affect the streaked

horned lark. Based on feedback from agricultural interests, we deleted several activities

from the 4(d) special rule (i.e., routine management and maintenance of stock ponds and

berms to maintain livestock water supplies; routine maintenance or construction of fences

for grazing management; placement of mineral supplements; and irrigation of agricultural

crops, fields, and livestock pastures) and added others (i.e., hazing of geese and

predators; and maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems).

In response to comments from the FAA and airport operators, we revised the 4(d)

special rule for airports on non-Federal lands by referencing applicable FAA regulations

98

and circulars addressing safety, and by including a take exemption for streaked horned

lark airstrikes at airports, which are an occasional unavoidable result of continuing

aviation operations.

We also amended the 4(d) special rule to include some management of noxious

weeds on non-Federal lands, as these actions facilitate the preservation of streaked

horned lark habitat on the landscape.

In addition, we found some typographical errors in the Proposed Regulation

Promulgation section of our proposed rule (October 11, 2012; 77 FR 61938),

specifically in the proposed amendments to 50 CFR 17.11(h), the List of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife (see 77 FR 62006). In the table at § 17.11(h), the historic range for

the streaked horned lark was correctly identified as British Columbia, Canada, and the

States of Washington and Oregon, although based on the presentation of that information,

it may have appeared as if all of the historic range for the streaked horned lark was within

the United States. For the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, British Columbia, Canada, was

mistakenly omitted from the subspecies’ historic range, which additionally includes the

States of Washington and Oregon. For both the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the

streaked horned lark, the "vertebrate population where endangered or threatened" was

mistakenly identified as only within the State of Washington in the United States. As

described in the text of the proposed rule, it was our determination and intent to list each

subspecies throughout its entire range. All of these errors have been corrected in the

Regulation Promulgation section of this final rule.

99

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth the

procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due

to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present

or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)

overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)

disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other

natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be

warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination. Each of

these factors is discussed below.

In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the

mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the species responds to

the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a

factor, but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is

exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then

attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive

or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing

as an endangered or threatened species as those terms are defined by the Act. This does

not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and

100

some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The

mere identification of factors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to

compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require evidence that these factors are

operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species meets the definition

of an endangered or threatened species under the Act.

We considered and evaluated the best available scientific and commercial

information in evaluating the factors affecting each of the species under consideration in

this rule.

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its

Habitat or Range

Under this factor, the primary long-term threats to the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly and the streaked horned lark are the loss, conversion, and degradation of habitat,

particularly as a consequence of agricultural and urban development, successional

changes to grassland habitat, and the spread of invasive plants.

The prairies of south Puget Sound and western Oregon are part of one of the

rarest ecosystems in the United States (Noss et al. 1995, p. I-2; Dunn and Ewing 1997, p.

v). Dramatic changes have occurred on the landscape over the last 150 years, including a

90 to 95 percent reduction in the spatial distribution of the prairie ecosystem. In the

south Puget Sound region, where most of western Washington’s prairies historically

occurred, less than 10 percent of the original prairie persists, and only 3 percent remains

101

dominated by native vegetation (Crawford and Hall 1997, pp. 13–14). In the remaining

prairies, many of the native bunchgrass communities have been replaced by nonnative

pasture grasses (Rogers 2000, p. 41), which larks avoid using for territories and nest sites

(Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 27). In the Willamette Valley, Oregon, native grassland has

been reduced from the most common vegetation type to scattered parcels intermingled

with rural residential development and farmland; it is estimated that less than 1 percent of

the native grassland and savanna remains in Oregon (Altman et al. 2001, p. 261).

Development

Native prairies and grasslands have been severely reduced throughout the range of

the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark as a result of human

activity due to conversion of habitat to residential and commercial development and

agriculture. Prairie habitat continues to be lost, particularly to residential development

(Stinson 2005, p. 70) by removal of native vegetation and the excavation and grading of

surfaces and conversion to non-habitat (buildings, pavement, other infrastructure).

Residential development is associated with increased infrastructure such as new road

construction, which is one of the primary causes of landscape fragmentation (Watts et al.

2007, p. 736). Activities that accompany low-density development are correlated with

decreased levels of biodiversity, mortality to wildlife, and facilitated introduction of

nonnative, invasive species (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, entire; Watts et al. 2007, p.

736). In the south Puget Sound lowlands, the glacial outwash soils and gravels

102

underlying the prairies are deep and valuable for use in construction and road building,

which leads to their degradation and destruction.

Since the 1850s, much of the Willamette Valley of Oregon has been altered by

development (agricultural and urban). About 96 percent of the Willamette Valley is

privately owned, and it is both the fastest growing area in Oregon and the most densely

populated. The Willamette Valley provides about half of the State’s agricultural sales,

and 16 of the top 17 private sector employers (manufacturing, high technology, forest

products, agriculture, and services) are located there. The population projected for 2050

is approximately 4 million, or nearly double the current population (Oregon Department

of Fish and Wildlife 2006, p. 237). The increase in population will result in increased

building construction and road development, further impacting the remaining prairies and

oak woodlands.

Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly—The habitat of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is

highly fragmented across the region due to agricultural and low-density residential

development. Fragmentation due to residential and associated road development has led

to a reduction of native larval host plants and adult nectar plants as introduced invasive

plant species, primarily Mediterranean grasses and shrubs such as Scot’s broom,

increasingly dominate the landscape and outcompete native plant species (see discussion

below, under

“Loss of Ecological Disturbance Processes, Invasive Species, and Succession”).

Construction directly destroys habitat, as does conversion, and may kill any sessile

103

(immobile) or slow-moving organism in the construction footprint (Trombulak and

Frissell 2000, p. 19). Unlike many other species of butterflies, the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterflies spend approximately 50 weeks of their life cycle as sedentary eggs, larvae, or

pupae with only a brief window of time (approximately 1–2 weeks) as mobile, winged

adults (Stinson 2005, p. 78). As a result, commercial and residential development,

construction of related infrastructure including roads, and conversion of habitat to

incompatible uses such as gravel mining directly affect the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly

eggs, larvae, and pupae by killing individuals and destroying habitat.

When in flight, butterflies become subject to mortality from collision with

vehicles on roads associated with residential development, which is commonly known to

affect animals of all sizes, but especially insects (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, p. 20).

Since the short flight season of Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies directly corresponds with

their reproductive period, death of gravid (egg-carrying) females could lead to population

declines;, however, it is unlikely that failure of the entire population would occur based

on this alone. These sorts of traffic-collision related deaths may disproportionately affect

Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies in comparison to other butterflies, as many other kinds of

butterflies are in flight for periods much longer than just their reproductive window.

Additionally, because female Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies oviposit in clusters (lay

many eggs in one place), vehicle traffic can adversely affect the subspecies by crushing

whole clutches of eggs or large numbers of larvae, which cluster together in the early

instar periods.

104

Four historical locales for Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies in the south Puget

Sound region were lost to development or conversion. Dupont, Spanaway, and

Lakewood were all converted to urban areas, and JBLM Training Area 7S became a

gravel pit (Stinson 2005, pp. 93–96).

In summary, the threat of development and conversion of the prairie ecosystem to

other uses has a significant impact on Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies due to the effect of

development on the habitat features that are required (short-statured vegetation

communities with specific larval and adult food resources) by the subspecies to complete

its life stages and become a reproductive adult butterfly.

Streaked Horned Lark—Horned larks need expansive areas of flat, open ground to

establish breeding territories. The large, flat, treeless areas that airports necessarily

require and maintain have become attractive alternative breeding sites for streaked

horned larks as native prairies and scoured river banks in the Pacific Northwest have

declined. Five of the six streaked horned lark nesting sites remaining in the Puget

lowlands are located on or adjacent to airports and military airfields (Rogers 2000, p. 37;

Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 15). At least four breeding sites are found at airports in the

Willamette Valley, including the largest known population at Corvallis Municipal Airport

(Moore 2008, pp. 14–17). Stinson (2005, p. 70) concluded that if large areas of grass had

not been maintained at airports, the streaked horned lark might have been extirpated from

the south Puget Sound area.

105

Although routine mowing to meet flight path regulations helps to maintain

grassland habitat in suitable condition for nesting streaked horned larks, the timing of

mowing is critical to determining whether this activity is harmful or beneficial to larks.

Mowing during the active breeding season (mid-April to late July) can destroy nests or

flush adults, which may result in nest failure (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 17; Stinson

2005, p. 72). Some of the airports in the range of the streaked horned lark have adjusted

the frequency and timing of mowing in recent years to minimize impacts to streaked

horned larks (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 10). In 2011, McChord Air Field at JBLM

agreed to a mowing regime that would provide protections to the streaked horned lark

during their nesting period. Unfortunately, in years with wet spring weather when grass

grows extremely rapidly, this strategy cannot always be implemented, as mowing must

occur to maintain safe conditions for aviation. WDFW coordinates mowing schedules at

the Olympia Airport to reduce impacts to streaked horned larks.

In 2008, the Port of Olympia prepared an interlocal agreement with the WDFW

that outlines management recommendations and mitigation for impacts to State-listed

species from development at the airport. In December 2010, a white paper and

supplemental planning memorandum was developed as part of the Airport Master Plan

Update (Port of Olympia 2010, pp. 7-12). This document, which is outlined in Appendix

2 of the Master Plan Update, outlines management recommendations for the protection of

critical areas and priority species, including the streaked horned lark. The

recommendations include minimizing development, retaining open or bare ground, and

avoiding mowing during the nesting season (March 15 through August 15) in known or

106

potential lark nesting areas. Although the Port does not anticipate any development to

occur in streaked horned lark nesting areas within the next 20 years, the agreement is not

a regulatory document that would preclude future development, which is a primary

source of revenue for the Port.

Airport expansions could result in further losses of some populations. At the

Olympia Airport, hangars were built in 2005, on habitat used by streaked horned larks for

foraging, resulting in a loss of grass and forb-dominated habitat, which could result in a

smaller local population due to reduced habitat availability for breeding and wintering

larks (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 12). Based on discussions with staff at Sanderson

Field in Shelton, future development plans do not include impacts to streaked horned lark

habitat at this time. The majority of the proposed development at Sanderson Field will

occur in areas already impacted (between existing buildings). The West Ramp at Gray

Army Air Field on JBLM was expanded in 2005, into areas previously used by breeding

streaked horned larks, resulting in a loss of available breeding habitat (Stinson 2005, p.

72).

At Portland International Airport, streaked horned larks nest in an area called the

Southwest Quad; this is an area that was filled with dredged material between 1987 and

2005, to create a site for future airport development. The Port of Portland, which owns

the airport, may propose to develop the Southwest Quad to accommodate future

expansion, though there is no current plan in place (Green 2012, in litt.). The future

development of the Southwest Quad would result in the loss of at least 33 ac (13 ha) of

107

habitat and three breeding territories (Moore 2011, p. 12). Land at the Corvallis Airport

Industrial Park is included in the Benton-Corvallis Enterprise Zone (City of Corvallis

Public Works Department 2011, p. 6); the site is intended for development of new

industries and could result in loss of breeding and wintering habitat for streaked horned

larks. The date and extent of the habitat loss is uncertain however, as no leases have been

granted for the site at this time.

The 13th Division Prairie at JBLM is used for helicopter operations (paratrooper

practices, touch-and-go landings, and load drop and retrievals) and troop training

activities. Foot traffic and training maneuvers that are conducted during streaked horned

lark breeding season likely are a contributing factor to nest failure and low nest success at

13th Division Prairie. Recently, a streaked horned lark nest was destroyed at 13th

Division Prairie by a porta-potty service vehicle (Linders 2012b, in litt.). Artillery

training, off-road use of vehicles, and troop maneuvers at the 91st Division Prairie are

also conducted in areas used by streaked horned larks during the nesting season. Because

access into this training area is limited and streaked horned lark surveys are only

conducted opportunistically, we do not know if or how many lark nests are lost due to

military activities at 91st Division Prairie.

Industrial development has also reduced habitat available to breeding and

wintering streaked horned larks. The Rivergate Industrial Park, owned by the Port of

Portland, is a large industrial site in north Portland near the Columbia River; the site is

developed on a dredge spoil field, and still has some large areas of open space between

108

the industrial buildings (Moore 2010a, pp. 12-13). Rivergate has been an important

breeding site for streaked horned larks, and a wintering site for large mixed flocks of up

to five horned lark subspecies (including the streaked horned lark). In 1990, the field

used by streaked horned larks at Rivergate measured more than 260 ha (650 acres) of

open sandy habitat (Dillon 2012, pers. comm.). In the years since, new industrial

buildings have been constructed on the site; now only one patch of 32 ha (79 acres) of

open dredge spoil field remains (Moore 2011, p. 9) and the breeding population has

dropped from 20 pairs to 5 pairs in this time (Moore 2011, p. 10).

For the reasons described here, we find that encroaching development and

conversion to incompatible uses of occupied and potentially suitable areas contributes to

the ongoing reduction of nesting and overwintering habitat for the streaked horned lark

and, as such, is a threat to the subspecies.

Loss of Ecological Disturbance Processes, Invasive Species, and Succession

The suppression and loss of natural and anthropogenic disturbance regimes, such

as fire and flooding, across vast portions of the landscape has resulted in altered

vegetation structure in the prairies and meadows and has facilitated invasion by nonnative

grasses and woody vegetation, rendering habitat unusable for Taylor’s checkerspot

butterflies and streaked horned larks. The basic ecological processes that maintain

prairies, meadows, and scoured river banks have disappeared from, or have been altered

on, all but a few protected and managed sites. Roadside verges and margins can have

109

both positive and negative impacts to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. Periodic

disturbance of road margins, verges, and road cuts may contribute to habitat creation due

to construction and vehicle use, both of which result in frequent disturbance and create

conditions conducive to colonization by the important larval host plant, the narrow-leaf

plantain. Creation of habitat features suitable to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly occurs

only when the site is allowed to rest after it is disturbed. This sequence of events allows

the host plant to be available to the butterfly, and the butterfly to be able to safely use the

created habitat without being crushed. However, frequently disturbed areas also present a

threat and may adversely affect the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly if the timing of vehicle

use coincides with larval feeding and basking. In the latter case, the created habitat may

act as a mortality sink, which attracts the butterfly to habitat that latter becomes a threat

to the subspecies if vehicle use crushes food plants or the larvae themselves.

Historically, the prairies and meadows of the south Puget Sound region of

Washington and western Oregon are thought to have been actively maintained by the

native peoples of the region, who lived there for at least 10,000 years before the arrival of

Euro-American settlers (Boyd 1986, entire; Christy and Alverson 2011, p. 93). Frequent

burning reduced the encroachment and spread of shrubs and trees (Boyd 1986, entire;

Chappell and Kagan 2001, p. 42; Storm and Shebitz 2006, p. 264), favoring open

grasslands with a rich variety of native plants and animals. Following Euro-American

settlement of the region in the mid-19th century, fire was actively suppressed on

grasslands, allowing encroachment by woody vegetation into the remaining prairie

110

habitat and oak woodlands (Franklin and Dyrness 1973, p. 122; Boyd 1986, entire;

Kruckeberg 1991, p. 287; Agee 1993, p. 360; Altman et al. 2001, p. 262).

Fires on the prairie create a mosaic of vegetation conditions, which serve to

maintain native prairie forbs like Camassia quamash (common camas), Achillea

millefolium (yarrow), and Lomatium spp. (desert parsley or biscuit root), which are adult

nectar foods for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. Stands of native perennial grasses

(Festuca idahoensis ssp. roemeri (Roemer’s fescue)) are also well adapted to regular fires

and produce habitat favorable to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. In some prairie

patches, fires will reset succession back to bare ground, creating early successional

vegetation conditions suitable for both Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies and streaked

horned larks (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 13). The historical fire return frequency on

prairies has been estimated to be 3 to 5 years (Foster 2005, p. 8).

The result of fire suppression has been the invasion of the prairies and oak

woodlands by native and nonnative plant species (Dunn and Ewing 1997, p. v; Tveten

and Fonda 1999, p. 146), notably woody plants such as the native Douglas-fir

(Pseudotsuga menziesii) and the nonnative Scot’s broom, and nonnative grasses such as

Arrhenatherum elatius (tall oatgrass) in Washington and Brachypodium sylvaticum (false

brome) in the Willamette Valley of Oregon. This increase in woody vegetation and

nonnative plant species has resulted in less available prairie habitat overall, and habitat

that is avoided by Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies and streaked horned larks (Tveten and

Fonda 1999, p. 155; Pearson and Hopey 2005, pp. 2, 27; Olson 2011a, pp. 12, 16). Most

111

butterflies avoid densely forested areas, as they are unable to generate enough heat from

their own metabolism to provide them with the heat and energy they need to fly in shaded

conditions. Streaked horned larks prefer areas that afford long sight lines and have low

vegetation; both of which are impeded by the presence of trees.

On tallgrass prairies in midwestern North America, fire suppression has led to

degradation and the loss of native grasslands (Curtis 1959, pp. 296, 298; Panzer 2002, p.

1297). On northwestern prairies, fire suppression has allowed Douglas-fir to encroach on

and outcompete native prairie vegetation for light, water, and nutrients (Stinson 2005, p.

7). On JBLM alone, over 16,000 acres (6,477 ha) of prairie has converted to Douglas-fir

forest since the mid-19th century (Foster and Shaff 2003, p. 284). Where controlled

burns or direct tree removal are not used as a management tool, this encroachment will

continue to cause the loss of open grassland habitats for the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly.

Restoration in some of the south Puget Sound grasslands in Washington has

resulted in temporary control of Scot’s broom and other invasive, nonnative plants

through the careful and judicious use of herbicides, mowing, grazing, and prescribed fire.

Prescribed fire has been used as a management tool to maintain native prairie

composition and structure and is generally acknowledged to improve the health and

composition of grassland habitat by providing a short-term nitrogen addition, which

results in a fertilizer effect to vegetation, thus aiding grasses and forbs as they resprout.

112

Unintentional fires ignited by military training burns patches of prairie grasses

and forbs on JBLM on an annual basis. These light ground fires create a mosaic of

conditions within the grassland, maintaining a low vegetative structure of native and

nonnative plant composition, and patches of bare soil. Because of the topography of the

landscape, fires create a patchy mosaic of areas that burn completely, some areas that do

not burn, and areas where consumption of the vegetation is mixed in its effects to the

habitat. One of the benefits to fire in grasslands is that it tends to kill regenerating

conifers, and reduces the cover of nonnative shrubs such as Scot’s broom, although

Scot’s broom seed stored in the soil can be stimulated by fire (Agee 1993, p. 367). Fire

also improves conditions for many native bulb-forming plants, such as Camassia sp.

(camas) (Agee and Dunwiddie 1984, p. 367). On sites where regular fires occur, such as

on JBLM, there is a high complement of native plants and fewer invasive species. These

types of fires promote the maintenance of the native, short-statured vegetation

communities (Severns and Warren 2008, p. 476) favored by the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterflies for larval and nectar food resources. Fire management to maintain or restore

native vegetation is essential to maintaining suitable habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly, but the timing of the management activity is important, as improperly timed

prescribed fire can destroy larvae, eggs, or adult butterflies.

Management practices such as intentional burning and mowing require expertise

in timing and technique to achieve desired results. If applied at the wrong season,

frequency, or scale, fire and mowing can be detrimental to the restoration of native prairie

species. For example, during a prescribed fire event that was implemented in an adjacent

113

training area on JBLM in late summer 2011, fire occurred in an area containing Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly habitat that was under a protection agreement. This burn was

inconsistent with the prescribed burn plan and eliminated a large area of Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly larval host and nectaring plants on the 91st Division Prairie.

Repeated and high intensity burning can result in a lack of vegetation or encourage

regrowth to nonnative grasses. Where such burning has occurred over a period of more

than 50 years on the artillery ranges of the JBLM, prairies are covered by nonnative forbs

and grasses instead of native perennial bunchgrasses (Tveten and Fonda 1999, pp. 154–

155).

Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly—On JBLM, the 91st Division Prairie is frequently

ignited through routine training exercises involving ordnance, which prevents invasive

shrubs and nonnative grasses and native Douglas-fir from encroaching onto the prairie,

and sustains high-quality habitat (larval host and adult nectar food plants) for Taylor’s

checkerspot butterflies and the generally high-quality condition of the prairie. Vegetation

at this site remains in an early successional stage that is dominated by native grasses and

forbs, such as Balsamorhiza deltoidea (deltoid balsamroot), which is an important

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly nectar plant. Fires on grassland (prairie) habitat generally

have low fuel content and produce regular, short-duration fires (Agee 1993, p. 354;

Chappell and Kagan 2001, p. 43), which restricts the establishment of invasive plants and

encroaching trees and helps to maintain native grasses and forbs. Swales and overall

topographic heterogeneity prevent the entire grassland landscape from being consumed

by fire, as grassland fires tend to be patchy in their distribution, creating a mosaic of

114

conditions. On a patch of this large prairie, nonnative grasses have invaded many sites

occupied by Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies (Severns and Warren 2008, p. 476). Several

hundred acres (more than 40 ha) of tall oatgrass is currently encroaching upon the largest

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly population in Washington (JBLM’s 91st Division Prairie).

Bald habitat at the Forest Service and WDNR sites where Taylor’s checkerspot

butterflies are found were created due to the shallow soil conditions or they may have

been formerly forested. On bald habitat that was formerly forested, these areas appear to

have been colonized by the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly shortly after they were cleared.

At the time the trees were harvested from each of these balds they were reforested with

conifers to comply with the Washington State forest practices rules. The establishment

and growth of the conifers, and the establishment and expansion of Acer macrophyllum

(bigleaf maple), Holodiscus discolor (oceanspray), and other shrubs has resulted in

shaded habitat that has replaced habitat occupied by the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly.

Sites that currently have Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies present will quickly become

unsuitable if trees and shrubs are not removed and if the site is not managed specifically

for the long-term conservation of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or the maintenance

of bald habitat. This is the case for several balds recently occupied by the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly but no longer supporting the subspecies, including Bald Hills NAP

in Thurston County of south Puget Sound, and Highway 112 and Striped Peak in Clallam

County, on the north Olympic Peninsula.

115

A large portion of the existing, occupied Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat on

Denman Island in British Columbia, Canada, resulted from timber harvest. After the area

was logged, Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies colonized the disturbed area from nearby

suitable habitat. Currently, Alnus rubra (red alder), bigleaf maple, and Douglas-fir trees

are expanding onto the site, which will directly threaten the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly habitat there (COSEWIC 2011, p. 18). As the forest becomes reestablished on

the property, it will produce shade and the trees will outcompete the host plants for the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly for space, water, light, and nutrients. The population of

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is expected to decline significantly within the next 10

years at this sole Canada site if the current habitat on Denman Island is not managed for

the subspecies (COSEWIC 2011, p. 31).

We conclude that the loss of ecological disturbance processes; the occurrence of

invasive, nonnative species; and the natural succession of vegetation communities

separately and collectively continue to be a threat to Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies.

Changes to the structure and composition of the native prairie plant communities

contributes to the loss of function of the prairie ecosystem and threatens the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly’s capability to successfully complete its life stage requirements and

quickly leads to extirpation of the subspecies from specific prairie patches.

Streaked Horned Lark—Prior to the construction of dams on the Columbia River,

annual flooding and scouring likely created nesting and wintering habitat for streaked

horned larks on sandy islands and beaches along the river’s edge (Stinson 2005, p. 67).

116

Once the dams were in place, Salix spp. (willows), Populus trichocarpa (black

cottonwood), and other vegetation established broadly on the sandbars and banks (Rogers

2000, pp. 41–42), resulting in unsuitable habitat for larks. Loss of these habitats may

have been partially ameliorated by the formation of dredge spoil islands that have been

established as part of the Corps’ shipping channel maintenance (Stinson 2005, p. 67).

The streaked horned lark currently uses sand islands in the lower Columbia River

for both breeding and wintering habitat; these islands are a mosaic of Federal, State, and

private lands, but there are no management or conservation plans in place to protect larks

or these important habitats. The Corps has a dredging program to maintain the

navigation channel in the Columbia River. In 2002, the Corps established a deeper

navigation channel in the river, a regular maintenance dredging program, and a plan for

disposition of dredge material on the islands in the lower Columbia River (USFWS

2002b, pp. 1–14). In this plan, the Corps addressed the disposition of dredge material in

the lower Columbia River, which has the potential to both benefit and harm streaked

horned larks, depending on the location and timing of deposition. Recent studies by

Anderson (2010a, p. 29) on the islands in the lower Columbia River have shown that

fresh dredge material stabilizes and develops sparse vegetation suitable for larks nesting

approximately 3 years after deposition, and can be expected to remain suitable for

approximately 2 years before vegetation becomes too dense (although larks were found to

use habitats that did not precisely fit this model, and more analysis is underway).

Deposition of dredge material at the wrong time, however (e.g., during the nesting

season), can destroy nests and young or degrade suitable habitat. Thus, deposition of

117

dredge material can be both a tool for habitat creation and a threat for the streaked horned

lark.

Destruction of occupied lark habitat through the deposition of dredge materials

has been documented several times on the lower Columbia River islands (Stinson 2005,

p. 67; Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 11; Pearson et al. 2008, p. 14). In 2006, dredge

spoils were deposited on Whites Island while larks were actively nesting. All nests at this

site were apparently destroyed (Pearson 2012a, pers. comm.). This site had at least 21

nests and 13 territories during the 2005 nesting season (Pearson et al. 2008, p. 21). In a

similar situation on Rice Island, singing males were observed on Rice Island in June

2000, but dredge spoil was placed on the site in July 2000, which destroyed nesting

habitat during the breeding season (MacLaren 2000, p. 3). In 2004 on Miller Sands Spit,

the Corps deposited dredge material on lark breeding habitat, which likely resulted in nest

failure (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 10). The Corps recently began working with the

Center for Natural Lands Management to coordinate dredge spoil depositions with timing

of lark breeding season (Anderson 2011, in litt.).

Dredge spoil deposition also creates habitat for Caspian terns (Sterna caspia), a

native bird species that nests in very large numbers in the lower Columbia River; these

large terns have been shown to eat substantial numbers of salmon smolts, and the

reduction of predation by terns on young salmon has been the focus of an interagency

effort for the past decade (Lyons et al. 2011, p. 2). One aspect of the effort to reduce the

numbers of terns in the lower Columbia River has been a program to discourage tern

118

nesting on Rice Island by planting vegetation and placing barrier fencing on open, sandy

habitats; these measures have also reduced habitat available to larks on the island and are

ongoing (Stinson 2005, p. 73; Roby et al. 2011, p. 14).

There is ample evidence that larks respond positively to habitat management that

simulates natural processes. From 2001 through 2004, JBLM used nonbreeding season

mowing and controlled burns to control Scot’s broom (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 30).

The September 2004 burns resulted in increased lark abundance and a dramatic

vegetative response on 13th Division Prairie; relative to the control sites, late summer fire

in 2006 resulted in increased use of the burned areas by larks immediately after the fires,

and in the breeding season following the fires (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 30).

Throughout the year, the streaked horned lark uses areas of bare ground or sparse

vegetative cover in grasslands. These grasslands may be native prairies in the Puget

lowlands, perennial or annual grass seed fields in the Willamette Valley, or the margins

of airport runways throughout the range of the species. All of these habitats receive

management to maintain desired structure: prairies require frequent burning or mowing to

prevent succession to woodlands; agricultural fields are mowed at harvest or burned to

reduce weed infestations; airports mow to maintain low-stature grasses around airfields to

minimize attracting hazardous wildlife. Burning and mowing are beneficial to larks in

that they maintain the habitat structure required by the bird, but these activities can also

harm larks if the activities occur during the breeding season when nests and young are

present (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 29). In the nesting seasons from 2002 to 2004,

119

monitoring at the Puget lowlands sites (Gray Army Airfield, McChord Field, and

Olympia Airport) documented nest failure of 8 percent of nests caused by mowing over

the nests, young, and adults (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 18). Habitat management to

maintain low-stature vegetation is essential to maintaining suitable habitat for the

streaked horned lark, but the timing of the management is important, as improperly timed

actions can destroy nests and young.

We conclude that the loss of natural disturbance that historically created habitat

for the streaked horned lark continues to be a threat to the subspecies due to

encroachment of plant species (e.g., trees and beach grasses) that reduce available habitat.

The Service has developed timing recommendations for other forms of manmade

disturbance including burning, mowing, and dredge spoil deposition. Where a Federal

nexus exists, the Service has partnered with other agencies to implement avoidance

strategies for occupied streaked horned lark nesting areas. When the recommended

timing restrictions are observed, we consider the benefit of habitat creation through

burning, mowing, and dredge spoil deposit outweighs the negative impact of these

activities, such that, if implemented appropriately, we do not consider such manmade

disturbance to pose a threat to the subspecies.

Military Training and Associated Activities

Populations of Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies and streaked horned larks

occurring on JBLM are exposed to differing levels of training activities on the base. The

120

Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) proposed actions under the “Grow the Army” (GTA)

initiative include stationing 5,700 new soldiers, new combat service support units, a

combat aviation brigade of 120 helicopters, facility demolition and construction to

support the increased troop levels, additional aviation, maneuvers, and live fire training

(75 FR 55313; September 10, 2010). The increased training activities will affect nearly

all training areas at JBLM, resulting in an increased risk of accidental fires, and habitat

destruction and degradation through vehicle travel, dismounted infantry training, bivouac

activities, and digging. While training areas on the base have degraded habitat for these

subspecies, with implementation of conservation measures, these areas still provide

habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark.

Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly—Military training on JBLM has resulted in direct

mortality of Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies and destruction of Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly habitat. Vehicle use and soldier foot traffic can crush larvae and damage larval

host plants. These actions disrupt intact prairie plant communities by disturbing

vegetation and exposing soils, directly introducing invasive plant seeds carried in on tires

or boots, and accelerating the rate of establishment of invasive grasses or other nonnative

plants that are light-seeded and easily blown onto a site from adjacent areas, like Cirsium

spp. (thistles), Senecio spp. (groundsel), and Chrysanthemum leucanthemum (oxeye

daisy). For example, in January 2009, an exercise occurred that did not follow the

documented training plan, which would have restricted vehicles to established roads in

order to protect sensitive habitat. Instead vehicles moved haphazardly across an area

known to be occupied by Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies and streaked horned larks.

121

Approximately 67 ac (27 ha) of prairie were repeatedly traversed by eight-wheeled,

armored personnel carriers known as Strykers. DOD staff later estimated that up to 37.5

ac (15 ha) were highly disturbed (Gruhn 2009, pers. comm.), with much of this acreage

scraped to bare soil (Linders 2009b, entire). This impact would have directly affected

overwintering larvae by crushing larvae and destroying the larvae plants used by Taylor’s

checkerspot butterflies.

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly counts were the lowest ever recorded at this site

during the following spring (Linders 2009a, entire; Randolph 2009, p. 4; Thomas 2009,

pers. obs). Prior to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly flight season in May 2009, the

three brigades of Strykers were dispatched away from JBLM and the prairies were not

used for Stryker training during the spring of 2009 or 2010, which corresponds to the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly flight period. This training break allowed Range 74–76 of

the 91st Division Prairie to regenerate or recover the vegetative qualities associated with

the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark habitat. JBLM has

subsequently coordinated with the Service to establish specific conservation measures

regarding vehicle use within this training area. Military training also occurs on a specific

portion of the 91st Division Prairie known as Range 50, where Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly larvae have been translocated during the springs of 2009, 2010, and 2011, and at

the proposed Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly translocation site at 13th Division Prairie.

Under the GTA initiative, more troops and vehicles will be stationed at JBLM;

this is likely to result in increased pressure on Taylor's checkerspot butterfly habitat and

122

larvae, particularly if the Army continues training on 91st Division Prairie. It is likely

that a higher number of troops will equate to a higher number of individuals recreating on

JBLM in places like Marion and Johnson prairies (this is further discussed under

”Recreation,” below).

We conclude that the threat of military training continues to have significant,

habitat-altering impacts on the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. All training areas on

JBLM that are currently occupied by Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies experience regular

training, including mounted vehicle training and infantry training, with foot soldiers

directly impacting the area where the subspecies is found. We consider military training

under present conditions a threat to the short-term and long-term conservation of the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly.

Streaked Horned Lark—Military training, including bombardment with explosive

ordnance and hot downdraft from aircraft, has been documented to cause nest failure and

abandonment for streaked horned larks at Gray Army Airfield and McChord Field at

JBLM (Stinson 2005, pp. 71–72). These activities harass and may kill some streaked

horned larks, but the frequent disturbance also helps to maintain sparse vegetation and

open ground needed for streaked horned lark nesting.

In the odd-numbered years since 2005, McChord Field has hosted a military

training event known as the Air Mobility Rodeo. This international military training

exercise is held at the end of July. This event includes aircraft, vehicles, and tents staged

123

on or near lark nesting areas, although the majority of these activities take place on

concrete hardstand areas (Geil 2010, in litt.). In even-numbered years, McChord Field

hosts a public air show known as Air Expo, which is scheduled in mid-July. At the Air

Expo, aerial events incorporate simulated bombing and fire-bombing, including

explosives and pyrotechnics launched from an area adjacent to the most densely

populated streaked horned lark nesting site at this location; these disturbances likely have

adverse effects to fledglings of late nests (Stinson 2005, p. 72). Surveys in 2004 detected

31 pairs of streaked horned larks at McChord Field (Anderson 2011, p. 14). In 2006, the

number of lark pairs at McChord Field had dropped by more than half to 14 pairs, and the

number of lark pairs has remained low, with just 11 pairs detected in 2011 (Anderson

2011, p. 14). The Rodeo and Air Expo events are scheduled to take advantage of the

good weather that typically occurs in the summer on the south Puget Sound; this

timeframe also coincides with streaked horned lark nesting season, and the disturbance

may continue to cause nest failure and abandonment (Pearson et al. 2005a, p. 18).

During the airshows, tents, vehicles, and concession stands are set up in the grassy areas

along the runways used by streaked horned larks for nesting, and thousands of visitors a

day line the runways to view the shows. As military training has been documented to

cause nest failure and abandonment, which can lower reproductive success and may

adversely affect fledglings, we conclude that these activities are a threat to the streaked

horned lark.

JBLM has committed to restrictions both seasonally and operationally on military

training areas, in order to avoid and minimize potential affects to the Taylor’s

124

checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark. These restrictions include identified

nontraining areas, seasonally restricted areas during breeding, and the adjustment of

mowing schedules to protect these subspecies. These conservation management practices

are outlined in an operational plan that the Service has assisted the DOD in developing

for JBLM (Thomas 2012, pers. comm.). While the Service fully supports the

implementation of these impact minimization efforts and will continue to collaborate

with DOD to address all aspects of training impacts on the subspecies, not all adverse

impacts of training on the subspecies are fully addressed. Military training as presently

conducted continues to be a threat to the subspecies at this time.

Restoration Activities

Management for invasive species and encroachment of conifers requires control

through equipment, herbicides, and other activities. While restoration has conservation

value for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark, management

activities to implement restoration may also have inadvertent direct impacts to the

subspecies that are the target of habitat restoration.

Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly—On occupied sites, Taylor’s checkerspot

butterflies are present throughout the year in some life cycle form. Restoration activities

(application of herbicides, use of restoration equipment, and fire) can result in trampling,

crushing, and destruction of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly larvae and larval host plants.

Mowing to reduce the cover and competition from woody species, if done at the wrong

125

time of year, can crush larval host plants and nectar plants used by adult butterflies on a

site or even crush and kill larvae. Mowing activities should be timed to coincide with the

diapause period for the subspecies, and mowing should be relatively high above the soil

level to avoid any larvae that may not have burrowed into the soil.

We conclude that restoration actions to improve Taylors’ checkerspot butterfly

habitat or increase the number of checkerspots on specific prairie patches may have

short-term adverse impacts to the subspecies and could potentially pose a threat to this

resident subspecies because it is present in some life form stage on relatively small

habitat patches throughout the entire year. However, any short-term threat posed by

restoration actions is outweighed by the positive contributions to the subspecies and its

habitat from these actions, such that as currently implemented, we do not consider

restoration actions to rise to the level of posing a threat to the subspecies.

Streaked Horned Lark—The introduction of Ammophila arenaria (Eurasian

beachgrass) and A. breviligulata (American beachgrass), currently found in high and

increasing densities in most of coastal Washington and Oregon, has dramatically altered

the structure of dunes on the outer coast (Wiedemann and Pickart 1996, p. 289). The tall

leaf canopy of beachgrass creates areas of dense vegetation, which is unsuitable habitat

for streaked horned lark nesting (MacLaren 2000, p. 5). Streaked horned larks require

sparse, low-stature vegetation with at least 16–17 percent bare ground; areas invaded by

beachgrass are too dense for streaked horned larks. The area suitable for streaked horned

lark breeding on the Washington coast has decreased as a result of the spread of

126

beachgrasses (Stinson 2005, p. 65; USFWS 2011a, p. 4-2). In a 10-year period (from

1977 to 1987) at Leadbetter Point on the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge, spreading

beachgrass reduced the available nesting habitat for streaked horned larks by narrowing

the distance from vegetation to water by 112 feet (34 meters) (WDFW 1995, p. 19).

Since 1985, encroaching beachgrasses have spread to cover over two-thirds of Damon

Point at Grays Harbor, another lark breeding site on the Washington coast (WDFW 1995,

p. 19). At Damon Point, Scot’s broom is also encroaching on lark habitat, reducing the

area available for nesting (Pearson 2011, in litt.). On the Oregon coast, the disappearance

of the streaked horned lark has been attributed to the invasion of exotic beachgrasses and

the resultant dune stabilization (Gilligan et al. 1994, p. 205).

Some efforts have been successful in reducing the cover of encroaching

beachgrasses. The Service’s Willapa National Wildlife Refuge has restored habitat on

Leadbetter Point. In 2007, the area of open habitat measured 84 ac (34 ha); after

mechanical and chemical treatment to clear beachgrass (mostly American beachgrass)

and spreading oyster shell across 45 ac (18 ha), 121 ac (50 ha) of sparsely vegetated,

open habitat suitable for lark nesting was created (Pearson et al. 2009, p. 23). The main

target of the Leadbetter Point restoration project was the federally listed western snowy

plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), but the restoration actions also benefited the

streaked horned lark. Before the restoration project, this area had just 2 streaked horned

lark territories (Pearson et al. 2005a, p. 7); after the project, an estimated 8 to 10

territories were located in and adjacent to the restoration area (Pearson 2012b, pers.

comm.).

127

Disease Impacts to Habitat

Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly—Until recently disease was not known to be a

factor affecting the habitat of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. We now have evidence

of a plant pathogen (Pyrenopeziza plantaginis) known to affect the leaf tissue of the

narrow-leaf plantain, the primary larval food for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly at

several locations, and the exclusive larval food plant at all sites known from Oregon. At

some locations on the north Olympic Peninsula, Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies select

harsh paintbrush as the primary larval food plant and select narrow-leaf plantain as the

secondary larval host. Pyrenopeziza plantaginis is active in late winter through early

spring, and contributes to the mortality of leaf tissue at a time when post-diapause larvae

are feeding on narrow-leaf plantain. Narrow-leaf plantain is an exotic but widely

distributed, invasive, European weed in North America (Wolff and Schaal 1992, pp. 326,

330). Although the pathogen is common in Europe, it has only recently been reported in

North America (Severns 2011, in litt.; Stone et al. 2011, p. 1). Severns and Warren

(2008. p. 476) identified the pathogen on leaves of narrow-leaf plantain from remnant

prairies in Benton County, Oregon, where Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies are known to

occur and where they feed exclusively on narrow-leaf plantain. Similar instances of leaf

mortality were previously attributed to frost damage on prairies of south Puget Sound,

Washington. Recently, P. plantaginis has been identified on narrow-leaf plantain at

Scatter Creek Wildlife Area in Thurston County, and at the 91st Division Prairie on

JBLM, in Pierce County; both sites are in Washington.

128

Uncertainty exists regarding how Pyrenopeziza plantaginis affects Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly larvae. The pathogen has been identified locally in Washington at

sites where Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly larvae feed on narrow-leaf plantain. The

pathogen kills leaf tissue in late winter and early spring, coinciding with the time post-

diapause larvae are feeding (Severns 2011, in litt.), which would lead to declining food

resource to support Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly larvae. If the food resource is killed

by this pathogen, it may affect the ability of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly larvae to

survive through the critical larval feeding period prior to emergence as an adult butterfly.

Pyrenopeziza plantaginis may be a threat to the larval foods utilized by the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and, subsequently, may indirectly affect the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly. At this time, we have evidence of the presence of this pathogen at

Scatter Creek Wildlife Area in Washington, where the pathogen appears common and its

effect to Plantago is severe (Severns 2011, in litt.) This threat may affect populations if

the pathogen were to become widespread on sites occupied by the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly; however, because we are uncertain of its potential as a population-level threat,

we conclude that disease is not a threat to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat at

this time, and we have no evidence to suggest that it is likely to become a threat within

the near future.

Streaked Horned Lark—Disease is not known to be a threat to the habitats of the

streaked horned lark.

129

Transient Agricultural Habitat

Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly—The Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is not

affected by transient agricultural habitat.

Streaked Horned Lark—Roughly half of all the agricultural land in the Willamette

Valley is devoted to grass seed production fields (Oregon Seed Council 2012, p. 1).

Grasslands—both rare native prairies and grass seed fields—are important habitats for

streaked horned larks in the Willamette Valley; open areas within the grasslands are used

for both breeding and wintering habitat (Altman 1999, p. 18; Moore and Kotaich 2010, p.

11; Myers and Kreager 2010, p. 9). About 420,000 ac (170,000 ha) in the Willamette

Valley are currently planted in grass seed production fields. Demand for grass seed is

declining in the current economic climate (Oregon Department of Agriculture 2011, p. 1);

this decreased demand for grass seed has resulted in farmers switching to other

agricultural commodities, such as wheat or nurseries and greenhouses (U.S. Department

of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistical Service Oregon Field Office 2009, p. 3;

Oregon Department of Agriculture 2011, p. 1). The continued decline of the grass seed

industry in the Willamette Valley will likely result in conversion from grass seed fields to

other agricultural types; this will result in fewer acres of suitable breeding and wintering

habitat for streaked horned larks.

130

Another potential threat related to agricultural lands is the streaked horned lark’s

use of ephemeral habitats. In the breeding season, streaked horned larks will move into

open habitats as they become available, and as the vegetation grows taller over the course

of the season, larks will abandon the site to look for other open habitats later in the season

(Beason 1995, p. 6). This ability to shift locations in response to habitat changes is a

natural feature of the streaked horned lark’s life-history strategies, as breeding in recently

disturbed habitats is part of their evolutionary history. In the Willamette Valley, some

habitats in agricultural fields are consistently available (e.g., on the margins of gravel

roads), while other patches of suitable habitat shift from place to place as fields are

burned, mowed, or harvested. Other suitable sites appear when portions of grass fields

perform poorly, inadvertently creating optimal habitat for larks. The shifting nature of

suitable habitat is not in itself a threat; the potential threat is in the overall reduction of

compatible agriculture, which would reduce the area within which streaked horned lark

habitat could occur.

Summary of Factor A

Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly—Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies face threats

from loss of habitat due to conversion of native grasslands to agriculture, and permanent

loss when prairies are developed for residential or commercial purposes. This decline is

exemplified by the reduction of populations for the subspecies rangewide, including a

reduction from over 40 populations to fewer than 10 populations in Washington, from 13

populations to 2 populations in Oregon, and from 24 populations to 1 population known

131

from Canada. Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies also face threats from changes in

vegetation structure and composition of native grassland-dominated plant communities.

Changes to vegetation structure and composition can occur through conversion to

agriculture, through natural succession processes, and through invasion by nonnative

species (Agee 1993, p. 345; Chappell and Kagan 2001, p. 42). In addition to the loss of

grasslands from development, conversion to agriculture, and other uses, as well as plant

succession, these plant communities are faced with degradation due to invasion of the

grassland habitat that remains by native conifers and nonnative pasture grasses, shrubs,

and forbs. As grasslands have been converted, the availability of Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly larval host plants and adult nectar plants has declined. We consider the

negative impacts to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly from the loss and degradation of

its native grassland habitats to pose a threat to the subspecies.

We conclude that disease, specifically Pyrenopeziza plantaginis, may pose a

potential threat to the larval food plant of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, and

therefore a potential indirect threat to the subspecies. However, we have no information

to suggest that it is currently a threat to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. Any threat of

disease to the larval food plant for this subspecies has the potential to become a threat in

the future due to the small number of remaining populations of the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly. However, based on our review of the best available information, we have no

data at this point to suggest that it is likely to become a widespread threat in the future.

132

The current threats to Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies are similar to those

identified at the time the subspecies was determined to be a candidate for listing in 2001.

Since then, the threat from invasive species and their impacts on native vegetation have

increased. Other threats, particularly the threat to develop Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly

habitat, have increased on Denman Island, Canada; in south Puget Sound, Washington;

and in the Willamette Valley, Oregon (IAE 2010, p. 1). Moreover, prior to entering two

wars in 2003, military training (DOD, Army, JBLM) on occupied Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly habitat was lower in intensity and duration. The only remaining high-quality

native habitat occupied by the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly within the south Puget

Sound region is found on the 91st Division Prairie of JBLM, a site of highly active

training that can inadvertently result in the destruction of larval host plants and crushed

larvae.

Based on negative impacts to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly from current

projected development and impacts to habitat, the loss of historically occupied locations,

military training, recreation, the limited distribution of the subspecies, existing and future

habitat fragmentation, habitat disturbance (including fire), and land use changes

associated with agriculture and long-term fire suppression, we conclude that there are

current and ongoing threats to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and its habitat that are

expected to continue into the future. At all locations presently occupied by the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly, the combined threats to the subspecies through the degradation or

destruction of its habitat are severe, pervasive, and ongoing, including: (1) Conversion of

habitat to agriculture, or permanent loss of habitat to development; (2) military training

133

that has destroyed habitat and led to mortality by crushing eggs and larvae; (3) invasion

of habitat by native and nonnative woody vegetation; (4) loss of natural disturbance

processes that otherwise would maintain early seral conditions; (5) a restricted and

disjunct range of the subspecies (see Factor E discussion, below); and (6) small

populations throughout the subspecies’ range (see Factor E discussion, below). The

continued decline and degradation of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat has resulted

in isolated populations occupying small habitat patches within degraded prairies, which

may lead to further population declines or to complete loss and may decrease the

geographic distribution of the the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. We conclude that the

current and ongoing threats to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and its habitat represent

significant effects to the subspecies and its habitat and will continue into the future.

Streaked Horned Lark—The streaked horned lark population decline in

Washington indicates that the observed range contraction for this subspecies may be

continuing, and the subspecies may disappear from that region in the near future. There

are many other ongoing threats to streaked horned lark’s habitat throughout its range,

including: (1) Conversion to agriculture and industry; (2) loss of natural disturbance

processes, such as fire and flooding; (3) encroachment of woody vegetation; (4) invasion

of coastal areas by nonnative beachgrasses; and (5) incompatible management practices.

The continued loss and degradation of streaked horned lark habitat may result in smaller,

more isolated habitats available to the subspecies, which could further depress the

rangewide population or reduce the geographic distribution of the streaked horned lark.

We conclude that the current and ongoing threats to streaked horned lark habitat are

134

resulting in a significant impact to the subspecies and its habitat and will continue into

the future.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational

Purposes

Overutilization of species results when the number of individuals removed from

the system exceeds the ability of the population of the species to sustain its numbers or

reduces populations of the species to a level such that it is vulnerable to other influences

(threats) upon its survival. This overutilization can result from removal of individuals

from the wild for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.

Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly—Populations of Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies

have declined dramatically during the past decade. We know of no overutilization of the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly for commercial, recreational, or educational purposes.

However, scientific studies may have inadvertently negatively affected Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly populations at the 13th Division Prairie on JBLM (Vaughan and

Black 2002). Over 7,000 individuals were observed as recently as 1997, but only 10

adults were observed during surveys in 2000, and no Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies

have been observed since (Stinson 2005, p. 94; Linders 2012c, in litt.). Mark-recapture

studies were conducted at this site for several years during this timeframe, and the study

methods involved capturing all adults and moving them to a single release location. This

action likely influenced the population demographics, but because no simultaneous

135

population monitoring was conducted, it is impossible to know whether there was an

effect. According to McGarrahan (1997), mark, release, and recapture studies of the Bay

Edith’s checkerspot (Euphydryas editha bayensis) were considered a contributing factor

in the extirpation of this population from Stanford’s Jasper Ridge Preserve. There are no

current Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly “mark, release and recapture studies” in progress.

Capture of butterflies for study is a potential threat at this time, and the trampling, or

crushing of eggs, larvae, and pupae associated with scientific studies continue to be a

potential threat to the subspecies, although likely a minor one.

Streaked Horned Lark—Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes is not known to be a threat to the streaked horned lark.

Summary of Factor B

In summary, although there is some evidence of historical mortality from

overutilization for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and there may have been recent

mortality from scientific studies of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, we have no reason

to believe that current levels of utilization, or the potential impacts from scientific studies

of the subspecies, have caused or will cause the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly to be

vulnerable to other threats. Based on the best scientific and commercial data available,

we have no information to suggest that overutilization for commercial, educational,

recreational, or scientific purposes is now a threat or will become a threat to the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly in the future.

136

In addition, there is no evidence that commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational use is now a threat or will become a threat to the streaked horned lark in the

future.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

Disease

Most healthy ecosystems include organisms such as viruses, bacteria, fungi, and

parasites that cause disease. Healthy wildlife and ecosystems have evolved defenses to

fend off most diseases before they have devastating impacts. An ecosystem with high

levels of biodiversity (diversity of species and genetic diversity within species) is more

resilient to the impacts of disease because there are greater possibilities that some species

and individuals within a species have evolved resistance, or if an entire species is lost,

that there will likely be another species to fill the empty niche.

Where ecosystems are not healthy, due to a loss of biodiversity and threats such

as habitat loss, climate change, pollutants, or invasive species, wildlife and ecosystems

are more vulnerable to emerging diseases. Diseases caused by or carried by invasive

species are particularly severe threats, as native wildlife may have no natural immunity to

them (National Wildlife Federation 2012).

137

Our review of the best available scientific and commercial data found no evidence

to indicate that disease is a threat to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or the streaked

horned lark. We conclude that disease is not a threat to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly

or the streaked horned lark now, nor do we anticipate it to become a threat in the future.

Predation

Predation is a process of major importance in influencing the distribution,

abundance, and diversity of species in ecological communities. Generally, predation

leads to changes in both the population size of the predator and that of the prey. In

unfavorable environments, prey species are stressed or living at low population densities

such that predation is likely to have negative effects on all prey species, thus lowering

species richness. In addition, when a nonnative predator is introduced to the ecosystem,

negative effects on the prey population may be higher than those from co-evolved native

predators. The effect of predation may be magnified when populations are small, and the

disproportionate effect of predation on declining populations has been shown to drive

rare species even further towards extinction (Woodworth 1999, pp. 74–75).

Predation has an impact on populations of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and

the streaked horned lark. The degree of threat to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly from

predation is not as pronounced as with the streaked horned lark due to the concentration

of defensive plant compounds within the larvae and adults that make them distasteful to

predators.

138

Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly—Generally, butterflies exhibit some protective

mechanisms to avoid predation, and this is true for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly.

Larvae of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly sequester iridoid glycosides (plant defensive

chemicals) during consumption of their larval host plants, narrow-leaf plantain and

paintbrush species. These compounds are distasteful to predators (COSEWIC 2011, p.

36), and generalist predators such as insects and spiders avoid checkerspot larvae

(Kuussaari et al. 2004, p. 140). Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly larvae also tend to be

brightly colored, which makes them highly visible and signals the presence of noxious

compounds to predators, including birds and some invertebrate predators that avoid

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly larvae (Kuussaari et al. 2004, p. 139). However, birds are

known to attack and consume adult butterflies. Bowers et al. (1985, p. 101) found avian

predation to be a significant factor in mortality of adult variable checkerspot butterflies

(Euphydryas chalcedona); they also found sex bias in selection of prey as the avian

predator ate more female variable butterflies (less bright red) than male variable

checkerspot butterflies, adding support to the idea that brightly colored insects are

avoided (Bowers 1985 p. 100). This is likely a naturally occurring predation event, and

we conclude that at this time it is currently not a threat, nor do we expect it to become a

threat to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly in the future.

Streaked Horned Lark—Predation on adult streaked horned larks has not been

identified as a threat, but it is the most frequently documented source of mortality for

eggs and young larks. In most studies of streaked horned lark nesting ecology, predation

139

has been the primary documented source of nest failure (Altman 1999, p. 18; Pearson and

Hopey 2004, p. 15; Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 16; Pearson and Hopey 2008, p. 1;

Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 32). Sixty-nine percent of nest failures were caused by

predation at four south Puget Sound study sites (Gray Army Airfield, 13th Division

Prairie, Olympia Airport, and McChord Field) in 2002–2004 (Pearson and Hopey 2005,

p. 18). Anderson (2006, p. 19) suggests that the primary predators of streaked horned

lark eggs and young were avian, most likely American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos),

although garter snakes (Thamnophis spp.) and western meadowlarks have also been

documented preying on eggs and young in the region (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 16;

Pearson and Hopey 2008, p. 4). On the Washington coast and lower Columbia River

islands, 46 percent of nest failures were caused by predation at three study sites (Midway

Beach, Damon Point, and Puget Island) in 2004 (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 18). A

study of five sites in the Willamette Valley (Corvallis Airport, M-DAC Farms, and

William L. Finley, Baskett Slough, and Ankeny National Wildlife Refuges) determined

that 23 to 58 percent of all streaked horned lark nests were lost to predation (Moore and

Kotaich 2010, p. 32).

Video cameras were used to identify predators in this Willamette Valley study;

documented predators include: red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), northern harrier

(Circus cyaneus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), great-horned owl (Bubo

virginianus), and rats and mice (Family Cricetidae) (Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 36).

Streaked horned larks are ground-nesting birds and are vulnerable to a many other

potential predators, including domestic cats and dogs, coyotes (Canis latrans), raccoons

140

(Procyon lotor), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), long-

tailed weasels (Mustela frenata), opossums (Didelphis virginiana), meadow voles

(Microtus pennsylvanicus), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), and shrews (Sorex spp.)

(Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 17; Stinson 2005, p. 59).

Predation is a natural part of the streaked horned lark’s life history, and in stable

populations, the effect of predation would not be considered a threat to the subspecies.

However, in the case of the streaked horned lark, the effect of predation may be

magnified when populations are small, and the disproportionate effect of predation on

declining populations has been shown to drive rare species even further towards

extinction (Woodworth 1999, pp. 74–75). It is also possible that predation rates are

higher now than in the past, due to the proximity of human developments and their

associated predator attractions near lark habitats. We consider the effect of predation on

streaked horned lark populations, particularly in the south Puget Sound, to be a threat to

the species.

The one area where predation does not appear to be a threat to nesting streaked

horned larks is in Portland at Rivergate Industrial Complex and the Southwest Quad at

Portland International Airport. In 2009 and 2010, nesting success was very high, and

only a single predation event was documented at these sites (Moore 2011, p. 11). The

reason for the unusually low predation pressure may be that the two industrial sites have

few predators because both sites are isolated from other nearby natural habitats.

141

Predation may have contributed to the extirpation of streaked horned larks on the

San Juan Islands. Streaked horned larks were last documented on the islands in 1962

(Lewis and Sharpe 1987, p. 204). The introduction of several exotic animal species,

including feral ferrets (Mustela putorius) and red foxes, to the island roughly coincides

with the disappearance of streaked horned lark. These introduced predators may have

significantly affected ground nesting birds and played a role in the eventual extirpation of

streaked horned larks (Rogers 2000, p. 42).

Summary of Factor C

Disease—Based on our review of the best scientific and commercial data

available, we conclude that disease is not a threat to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or

streaked horned lark now, nor do we expect it to become a threat in the future.

Predation—We found only one study with evidence to indicate that predation

from avian predators may be a threat to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. While

predation does occur on the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, it does not appear to be

occurring beyond expected natural levels; therefore, we do not consider it to be a threat to

the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly now, nor do we expect it to become a threat in the

future.

Because the populations of streaked horned larks are declining and small, we find

that effect of the threat of predation is likely magnified and resulting in a significant

142

impact on the subspecies. Therefore, based on our review of the best scientific and

commercial data available, we conclude that predation is a threat to the streaked horned

lark now and will continue to be a threat into the future.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Under this factor, we examine whether existing regulatory mechanisms are

inadequate to address the threats to the species discussed under the other factors. Section

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires the Service to take into account “those efforts, if any, being

made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign

nation, to protect such species….” In relation to Factor D under the Act, we interpret this

language to require the Service to consider relevant Federal, State, and tribal laws,

regulations, and other such mechanisms that may minimize any of the threats we describe

in threat analyses under the other four factors, or otherwise enhance conservation of the

species. We give strongest weight to statutes and their implementing regulations and to

management direction that stems from those laws and regulations. An example would be

State governmental actions enforced under a State statute or constitution, or Federal

action under statute.

The following section includes a discussion of Federal, State, or local laws,

regulations, or treaties that apply to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or streaked horned

lark. It includes legislation for Federal land management agencies and State and Federal

regulatory authorities affecting land use or other relevant management.

143

Canadian Laws and Regulations

In British Columbia, the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark

are on the Conservation Data Centre’s Red List. The Red List includes ecological

communities, indigenous species, and indigenous subspecies that are extirpated,

endangered, or threatened in British Columbia; placing taxa on the Red List flags them as

being at risk and requiring investigation, but does not confer any protection (British

Columbia Ministry of Environment 2012, p. 1).

In 2003, the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, and in 2005, the streaked horned lark,

were determined to be endangered under the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA)

(Environment Canada 2007, p. iii). SARA makes it an offense to kill, harm, harass,

capture, or take an individual of a listed species that is endangered or threatened; possess,

collect, buy, sell, or trade an individual of a listed species that is extirpated, endangered,

or threatened, or its part or derivative; and damage or destroy the residence of one or

more individuals of a listed endangered or threatened species or of a listed extirpated

species if a recovery strategy has recommended its reintroduction.

For many of the species listed under SARA, the prohibitions on harm to

individuals and destruction of residences are limited to Federal lands, but this limitation

is inapplicable to migratory birds protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act,

including streaked horned lark (Statutes of Canada (S.C). ch. 29, sec. 34). Hence, SARA

144

protects streaked horned larks, where present, from harm and destruction of their

residences, not only on Federal lands, but also on provincial and private lands, where

most of the remaining habitat for the species occurs. Moreover, SARA mandates

development and implementation of a recovery strategy and action plans (S.C. ch. 29,

secs. 37, 47). Invertebrate species assessed by the Committee on the Status of

Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) as endangered will be protected by the

British Columbia Wildlife Act and Wildlife Amendment Act, once these regulations are

finalized (COSEWIC 2011, p. 44).

The horned lark (all subspecies) is also protected under Canada’s Federal

Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (MBCA) (S.C. ch. 22), which is their domestic

legislation similar to the United States’ Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA; 16

U.S.C. 703 et seq.). The MBCA and its implementing regulations prohibit the hunting of

migratory nongame birds and the possession or sale of “migratory birds, their nests, or

eggs” (S.C. ch. 22, secs. 5, 12).

Although British Columbia has no stand-alone endangered species act, the

provincial Wildlife Act protects virtually all vertebrate animals from direct harm, except

as allowed by regulation (e.g., hunting or trapping). Legal designation as endangered or

threatened under the Wildlife Act increases the penalties for harming a species, and also

enables the protection of habitat in a Critical Wildlife Management Area (British

Columbia Wildlife Act 1996, accessed online). The streaked horned lark is not listed

under Canada’s provincial Wildlife Act as an endangered or threatened species.

145

To date, there is no finalized recovery strategy for the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly in Canada (COSEWIC 2011, p. 44). A majority (97 percent) of the known

populations observed in Canada occur on private land on Denman Island, which is not

protected from development by individual landowners; approximately 1,173 ac (475 ha)

of this private land has been officially transferred to the government and will become a

Provincial Park or Ecological Reserve (COSEWIC 2011, p. 45). A final recovery

strategy for the streaked horned lark was released in 2007 (COSEWIC 2011, p. 40); the

streaked horned lark is essentially extirpated in Canada, and the recovery goal for this

subspecies is to reestablish a breeding population of at least 10 breeding pairs at a

minimum of 3 sites within its historical breeding range in Canada (Environment Canada

2007, p. iv). Based on our evaluation, we have determined that SARA provides

protections for both the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark given

their limited occurrences in British Columbia, and, additionally, the streaked horned lark

is afforded protections under the MBCA.

U.S. Federal Laws and Regulations

There are no Federal laws in the United States that specifically protect the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703

et seq.) is the only Federal law in the United States currently providing specific

protection for the streaked horned lark due to its status as a migratory bird. The MBTA

prohibits the following actions, unless permitted by Federal regulation:

146

to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer

for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for

shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver

for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be

carried, or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or export, any migratory

bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, or any product, whether or not

manufactured.”

There are no provisions in the MBTA that prevent habitat destruction unless

direct mortality or destruction of active nests occurs (for example, as was described in

Factor A, above, for dredge spoil disposal in the breeding season), nor does the MBTA

require any planning to recover declining species or provide funding to protect

individuals or their habitats. Therefore, we conclude that the MBTA does not address

threats to the streaked horned lark from further population declines associated with

habitat loss or inappropriate management.

The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670) authorizes the Secretary of Defense to develop

cooperative plans with the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior for natural resources

on public lands. The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 requires Department of

Defense installations to prepare integrated natural resources management plans

(INRMPs) that provide for the conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources on

military lands consistent with the use of military installations to ensure the readiness of

the Armed Forces. INRMPs incorporate, to the maximum extent practicable, ecosystem

management principles and provide the landscape necessary to sustain military land uses.

147

While INRMPs are not technically regulatory mechanisms because their implementation

is subject to funding availability, they can be an added conservation tool in promoting the

recovery of endangered and threatened species on military lands.

On JBLM in Washington, several policies and an INRMP are in place to provide

conservation measures to grassland associated species that occupy training lands on the

military base. JBLM in partnership with local agencies and nongovernmental

organizations has provided funding to conserve these species through the acquisition of

new conservation properties and management actions intended to improve the amount

and distribution of habitat for these species. JBLM has also provided funding to

reintroduce declining species (e.g., the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly) into suitable

habitat on and off military lands. In June 2011, representatives from DOD (Washington,

DC, office) met with all conservation partners to assess the success of this program and

make decisions as to future funding needs. Support from the Garrison Commander of

JBLM and all partners resulted in an increase in funding for habitat management and

acquisition projects for these species on JBLM.

The Service has worked closely with the DOD to develop protection areas within

the primary habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly on JBLM. These include areas

where no vehicles are permitted on occupied habitat, where vehicles will remain on roads

only, and where foot traffic is allowed.

148

JBLM policies include Army Regulation 420-5, which covers the INRMP, and

AR-200-1. This is an agreement between each troop and DOD management that actions

taken by each soldier will comply with restrictions placed on specific training areas, or

range lands. Within the INRMP, the wildlife branch of the DOD developed updated

endangered species management plans (ESMPs) that provide site-specific management

and protection actions that are taken on military lands for the conservation of the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark. The ESMPs provide assurances of

available funding, and an implementation schedule that determines when certain

activities will occur and who will accomplish these actions. ESMPs require regular

updates to account for dispersal of animals, or for activities to enhance habitat for

animals that may have been translocated to a new habitat patch. INRMPs also have a

monitoring component that would require modifications, or adaptive management, to

planning actions when the result of that specific action may differ from the intent of the

planned action. Based on the military’s efforts, we conclude that although military

actions may continue to harm individuals of the species, through the Sikes Act, the

JBLM’s INRMP includes provisions that will promote protection and conservation

practices to support the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark, and

prevent further population declines associated with habitat loss or inappropriate

management on JBLM properties. However, even with the above mitigating efforts

implemented by the military, we conclude that the regulatory mechanisms in place at

JBLM are not sufficient to ameliorate the threats to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly

rangewide.

149

The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.),

states that the National Park Service (NPS) “shall promote and regulate the use of the

Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations … to conserve the

scenery and the national and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for

the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” The NPS management policies

indicate that the Park Service will meet its obligations under the National Park Service

Organic Act and the Endangered Species Act to both proactively conserve listed species

and prevent detrimental effects on these species. This includes working with the Service

and undertaking active management programs to inventory, monitor, restore, and

maintain listed species habitats, among other actions.

The National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.)) has required the

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Forest Service to incorporate standards and

guidelines into land and resource management plans, including provisions to support and

manage plant and animal communities for diversity and for the long-term, rangewide

viability of native species (see 16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)). The regulations at 36 CFR 219

provide a framework to guide the collaborative and science-based development,

amendment, and revision of land management plans. This framework is designed to

promote healthy, resilient, diverse, and productive national forests and grasslands with a

range of social, economic, and ecological benefits now and for future generations. In the

face of changing environmental conditions and stressors, such as a changing climate, the

regulations require plans to include plan components to: (1) Maintain and restore

150

ecosystem and watershed health and resilience (ecological integrity); (2) protect key

resources on the unit, including water, air, and soil; and (3) address water quality and

riparian area protection and restoration.

The regulations at 36 CFR 219 contain a strong implementation approach to

provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities and the persistence of native

species in the plan area. This approach requires that plans use a complementary

ecosystem and species-specific approach to maintaining the diversity of plant and animal

communities and the persistence of native species in the plan area. The intent is to

provide the ecological conditions (habitat) necessary to keep common native species

common, contribute to the recovery of endangered and threatened species, conserve

proposed and candidate species, and maintain viable populations of each species of

conservation concern within the plan area. The regulations require that plans provide the

ecological conditions necessary to contribute to the recovery of endangered and

threatened species, and to conserve candidate and proposed species. In addition, the

requirements for restoration and ecological sustainability are intended to reduce the risk

that species will become listed as endangered or threatened in the future.

On USDA Forest Service lands, management for listed and candidate species, as

well as species of concern, follow Forest Service Sensitive Species policy (Kerwin and

Huff 2007, p. 6). For the Forest Service, these policies require the agency to maintain

viable populations of all native and desired nonnative wildlife, fish, and plant species in

habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands.

151

Management “must not result in a loss of species viability or create significant trends

toward Federal listing” for any identified Sensitive Species (Kerwin and Huff 2007, p. 6).

The Olympic National Forest is in the process of developing site management

plans for each location where the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is known to occur. This

planning document will call for restoration actions to removed encroaching conifers and

shrubs, nonnative plant removal and control, road management, and possibly planting or

seeding of larval host plants (Holtrop 2010, p. 7). Because this planning process is not

finished, however, we do not rely on it in our assessment of the adequacy of Forest

Service regulatory mechanisms. While a Federal candidate species, and following

implementation of this final rule (see DATES), as a federally listed species, the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly receives support from the Forest Service Interagency Special Status

and Sensitive Species Program (Huff, 2011, pers. comm.). Based on our review, we

conclude that the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark are protected

from further population declines associated with habitat loss or incompatible

management on Forest Service lands.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C.

668dd et seq.) establishes the protection of biodiversity as the primary purpose of the

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) system. This has led to various management actions to

benefit the federally listed species including development of a comprehensive

conservation plans (CCP) on NWRs. CCPs typically set goals and list needed actions to

protect and enhance populations of key wildlife species on refuge lands. The Taylor’s

152

checkerspot butterfly is not known to occur on any NWR. However, streaked horned

larks occur on the Willapa NWR on the Washington coast and in the Willamette Valley

Complex on the William L. Finley, Ankeny, and Baskett Slough NWRs. The CCPs for

the Willapa NWR and all the units in the Willamette Valley Complex contain habitat

conservation measures to address threats such as habitat degradation and benefit streaked

horned larks; measures include surveys, habitat enhancement, and removal of invasive

plants (USFWS 2011a, p. 2-34; USFWS 2011b, pp. 2-47–2-48). The joint CCP for the

Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen NWRs in the lower Columbia River states that

streaked horned larks do not occur on the refuges, although they do occur on suitable

habitats near the refuge parcels (USFWS 2010, p. 4-37). The joint CCP identifies actions

to benefit streaked horned larks on off-refuge lands (but that are within the refuge

acquisition boundary), including working with the Corps to manage the dredge spoil

deposition program to benefit larks (USFWS 2010, pp. 2-29–2-30).

CCPs detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above

current budget allocations, and as such, are primarily used for strategic planning and

priority setting; inclusion of a project in a CCP does not guarantee that the project will be

implemented. The CCPs at the Willapa and Willamette Valley NWRs specifically

provide for the conservation of the streaked horned lark, and implementation of the

conservation measures in the refuge CCPs could benefit as many as 10 nesting pairs of

larks at Willapa NWR (USFWS 2011a, pp. 4-44–4-45) and likely more than 50 pairs at

the three Willamette Valley NWRs (Moore 2009, pp. 5–9). These actions may improve

the status of streaked horned larks on the refuges. Therefore based on our review, we

153

conclude that streaked horned lark is protected from further population declines

associated with habitat loss or incompatible management on NWR lands.

State Laws and Regulations

Although there is no State endangered species act in Washington, the Washington

Fish and Wildlife Commission has authority to list species (Revised Code of Washington

(RCW) 77.12.020). State-listed species are protected from direct take, but their habitat is

not protected (RCW 77.15.120). The Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned

lark are listed by the WDFW and are listed as critically imperiled (S1) by the Washington

Natural Heritage Program. State listings generally consider only the status of the species

within the State’s borders, and do not depend upon the same considerations as a potential

Federal listing. Unoccupied or unsurveyed habitat is not protected unless by County

prairie ordinances or other similar rules or laws.

The Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark are Priority Species

under WDFW’s Priority Habitats and Species Program (WDFW 2008, pp. 19, 80, 120).

As Priority Species, the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark may

benefit from some protection of their habitats under environmental reviews of

applications for county or municipal development permits (Stinson 2005, pp. 46, 70).

For the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, WDFW has developed a recommended approach

to protect the species on private property. Their approach is non-regulatory and

encourages landowners to engage in cooperative efforts to protect and conserve Taylor’s

154

checkerspot butterfly habitat. However, State regulatory mechanisms appear to be

insufficient to protect these species in areas where permits are not required or requested.

We therefore conclude that Washington State regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to

protect the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark and do not protect

these species from further population declines associated with habitat loss or

inappropriate management.

Under the Washington State Forest Practices Act (RCW 76.09, accessed online

2012), WDNR must approve certain activities related to growing, harvesting, or

processing timber on all local government-owned, State-owned, and privately owned

forest lands. WDNR’s mission is to protect public resources while maintaining a viable

timber industry. The primary goal of the forest practices rules is to achieve protection of

water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and capital improvements while ensuring that

harvested areas are reforested. Presently, the Washington State forest practices rules do

not specifically protect Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies or streaked horned larks; only the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly actually occurs within areas where forest practices rules

might apply. Landowners have the option to develop a management plan for the species

if it resides on their property, or if landowners choose to not develop a management plan

for the species with WDFW, their forest practices application will be conditioned to

protect this public resource. If this approach does not provide the required protections for

the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, then WDFW and WDNR may request the Forest

Practice Board to initiate rulemaking, and possibly, an emergency rule would be

developed (Whipple 2008, pers. comm.).

155

The WDNR also manages approximately 66,000 ac (26,710 ha) of lands as

Natural Area Preserves (NAP). NAPs provide the highest level of protection for

excellent examples of unique or typical land features in Washington State. Based on

their proactive management, these NAPs provide protection for the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly on WDNR lands.

Oregon has a State Endangered Species Act (ESA), which was last updated in

1998. The streaked horned lark is not State-listed, and the State does not protect

invertebrates like the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly under the State ESA (Oregon ESA

2004, p. 3). The list of endangered and threatened species tracked by the Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife does not include insects, and does not classify the

streaked horned lark with any conservation status. When an Oregon “native wildlife”

species is federally listed as endangered or threatened, it is not automatically included as

a State-listed species. The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission may review the

available information and make a finding regarding State listing; when a species is State-

listed in Oregon, it receives some protection and management, primarily on State-owned

or managed lands (OAR 635–100–0100 to OAR 635–100–0180; ORS 496.171 to ORS

496.192).

The Oregon Forest Practices Act (ORS 527.610 to 527.992 and OAR Chapter

629, Divisions 600 to 665) lists protection measures specific to private and State-owned

forested lands in Oregon. These measures include specific rules for resource protection,

156

including endangered and threatened species; riparian areas along lakes, streams, springs,

and seeps; and wetlands. Compliance with the forest practice rules does not substitute for

or ensure compliance with the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

(Act). Landowners and operators are advised that Federal law prohibits a person from

taking certain endangered or threatened species that are protected under the Act (OAR

629-605-0105). Neither the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly nor the streaked horned lark

are forest-dependent species; therefore neither species is likely to be directly affected by

the Oregon Forest Practices Act.

Local Laws and Regulations

The Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990 (GMA) requires all

jurisdictions in the State to designate and protect critical areas. The State defines five

broad categories of critical areas, including: (1) Wetlands; (2) areas with a critical

recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (3) fish and wildlife habitat

conservation areas; (4) frequently flooded areas; and (5) geologically hazardous areas.

Quercus garryana (Oregon white oak) habitat and prairie both predominantly fall into the

category of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, although due to the coarse nature

of prairie soils and the presence of wet prairie habitat across the landscape, critical area

protections for crucial aquifer recharge areas and wetlands may also address prairie

habitat protection.

157

Within counties, the County Areas Ordinance (CAO) applies to all unincorporated

areas, but incorporated cities are required to independently address critical areas within

their urban growth area. The incorporated cities within the range of the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark are: (1) Shelton (Mason County); and (2)

Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater, Tenino, and Yelm (Thurston County), all in the State of

Washington.

In 2009, the Thurston County Board of Commissioners adopted Interim

Ordinance No. 14260, which strengthened protections for prairie and Oregon white oak

habitat in consideration of the best available science. The County worked with the

Service and WDFW to include an up-to-date definition of prairie habitat and to delineate

soils where prairie habitat is likely to occur. In July 2010, the ordinance was renewed

and amended, including revisions to the prairie soils list and changes to administrative

language. Since July 2010, the interim prairie ordinance has been renewed on a 6-month

basis and is currently in place. Several prairie species, including the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark, were also included as important species

subject to critical areas regulation (Thurston County 2012, p. 1).

County staff use the known presence or historical locations of the Taylor’s

checkerspot or streaked horned lark to determine whether these species may be present at

a site and impacted by the land use activity. After a field review, if one of these species

is found on the site, the County requires a habitat management plan (HMP) to be

developed, typically by a consultant for the landowner, in accordance with WDFW’s

158

management recommendations. This HMP specifies how site development should occur,

and assists developers in achieving compliance with CAO requirements to minimize

impact to the prairie habitat and species. The HMPs typically include onsite restoration

and enhancement activities. Mitigation for prairie impacts may also be required, on-site

or off (Thurston County 2012, p. 2).

In Clallam, Pierce, and Mason Counties, specific critical area ordinances have not

been identified for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or streaked horned lark. However,

prairie habitats and species garner some protection under Fish (or Aquatic) and Wildlife

Habitat Conservation Areas (Mason County 2009, p. 64; Clallam County 2012, Part

Three, entire; Pierce County 2012, pp. 18E.40-1-3). All developments within these areas

are required to: Preserve and protect habitat adequate to support viable populations of

native wildlife (Clallam County 2012, Part Three, entire); achieve “no net loss” of

species and habitat where, if altered, the action may reduce the likelihood that these

species survive and reproduce over the long term (Pierce County 2012, p. 18E.40-1); and

support viable populations and protect habitat for Federal or State listed fish or wildlife

(Mason County 2009, p. 63). While these regulations are likely adequate for the

management of species with stable populations and large ranges, the loss of individual

animals can have a cumulative impact deleterious to species facing a wide range of other

threats and that already have decreased numbers of individuals or populations, such as the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or streaked horned lark.

159

County-level CAOs do not apply to incorporated cities within county boundaries;

thus, the incorporated cities of Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater, Yelm, and Tenino that

overlap the range of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark do not

provide the same specificity of protection for these taxa as the Thurston County CAO.

Below, we address the relevant city ordinances that overlap these species’ ranges. We

conclude below with a summary of whether we deem these existing city ordinances

inadequate for the conservation of the Taylor’s checkerspot and streaked horned lark.

The City of Olympia—The City of Olympia’s municipal code states that “The

Department [City] may restrict the uses and activities of a development proposal which

lie within one thousand feet of important habitat or species location,” defined by

Washington State’s Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Management Recommendations

of 1991, as amended” (Olympia Municipal Code (OMC) 18.32.315 B). When

development is proposed within 1,000 feet of habitat of a species designated as important

by Washington State, the Olympia CAO requires the preparation of a formal “Important

Habitats and Species Management Plan,” unless waived by the WDFW (OMC

18.32.320).

The City of Lacey—The City of Lacey CAO includes in its definition of critical

area any area identified as habitat for a Federal or State endangered, threatened, or

sensitive species or State-listed priority habitat and calls these “habitat conservation

areas” (HCAs) (Lacey Municipal Code (LMC) 14.33.060). These areas are defined

through individual contract with qualified professional biologists on a site-by-site basis as

160

development is proposed. The code further states that “No development shall be allowed

within a habitat conservation area or buffer [for a habitat conservation area] with which

state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association”

(LMC 14.33.117).

The City of Tumwater—The City of Tumwater CAO outlines protections for

“habitat critical areas” and for “habitats and species of local importance.” Tumwater’s

habitat critical areas are established on a case-by-case basis by a “qualified professional”

as development is proposed, and the habitat critical areas are required to be consistent

with the “recommendations issued by the Washington State Department of Fish and

Wildlife” (Tumwater Municipal Code (TMC) 16.32.60). Species of local importance are

defined as locally significant species that are not State-listed as endangered, threatened,

or sensitive, but live in Tumwater and are of special importance to the citizens of

Tumwater for cultural or historical reasons, or if the city is a critically significant portion

of its range (TMC 16.32.055 A). Tumwater is considered a “critically significant portion

of a species’ range if the species’ population would be divided into nonviable populations

if it is eliminated from Tumwater” (TMC 16.32.055 A2). Species of local importance are

further defined as State monitor or candidate species where Tumwater is a significant

portion of its range such that a significant reduction or elimination of the species from

Tumwater would result in changing the status of the species to that of State endangered,

threatened, or sensitive (TMC 16.32.055 A3).

161

The City of Yelm—The municipal code of Yelm states that it will, “regulate all

uses, activities, and developments within, adjacent to, or likely to affect one or more

critical areas, consistent with the best available science” (Yelm Municipal Code /(YMC)

14.08.010 E4f) and mandates that “all actions and developments shall be designed and

constructed to avoid, minimize, and restore all adverse impacts.” Further, it states that

“no activity or use shall be allowed that results in a net loss of the functions or values of

critical areas” (YMC 14.08.010 G) and “no development shall be allowed within a habitat

conservation area or buffer which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive

species have a primary association, except that which is provided for by a management

plan established by WDFW or applicable state or federal agency” (YMC 14.080.140

D1a). The City of Yelm municipal code states that by “limiting development and

alteration of critical areas” it will “maintain healthy, functioning ecosystems through the

protection of unique, fragile, and valuable elements of the environment, and . . . conserve

the biodiversity of plant and animal species” (17.08.010 A4b) .

The City of Tenino—The City of Tenino municipal code gives development

regulations for critical areas and natural resource lands that include fish and wildlife

habitat areas (Tenino Municipal Code (TMC) 18D.10.030 A) and further “protects

unique, fragile, and valuable elements of the environment, including critical fish and

wildlife habitat” (TMC 18D.10.030 D). The City of Tenino references the DNR critical

areas fish and wildlife habitat areas, stream typing map and the WDFW PHS program

and PHS maps as sources to identify fish and wildlife habitat (TMC 18D.10.140 E1, 2).

The City also defines critical fish and wildlife species habitat areas as those areas known

162

to support or have, “a primary association with State or Federally listed endangered,

threatened, or sensitive species of fish or wildlife (specified in 50 CFR 17.11, 50 CFR

17.12, WAC 232-12-011) and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the

species will survive and reproduce over the long term” (TMC 18D.40.020A, B).

The City of Shelton—The CAO for the city of Shelton (Mason County) specifies

compliance with the PHS through designation of habitat conservation areas (HCAs)

(Shelton Municipal Code (SMC) 21.64.300 B1), indicating that where HCAs are

designated, development will be curtailed (SMC 21.64.010 B), except at the discretion of

the director (city), who may allow single-family development at such sites without a

critical areas assessment report if development is not believed to directly disturb the

components of the HCA (SMC 21.64.360 B).

Summary of Local Laws and Regulations

Each city’s CAO has been crafted to preserve the maximum amount of

biodiversity while at the same time encouraging high-density development within their

respective urban growth areas. Each city requires that potential fish and wildlife habitat

be surveyed by qualified professional habitat biologists as development is proposed. A

habitat conservation area (HCA) is determined according to the WDFW priority habitat

and species list. If an HCA is identified at a site, the development of the parcel is then

subject to the CAO regulations. Mitigation required by each city’s CAO prioritizes

163

reconsideration of the proposed development action in order to avoid the impact to the

HCA.

For the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark, only known or

historical locations are considered prior to applying the CAOs. There are currently no

WDFW priority habitat and species recommendations for these species, and no surveys

are completed for these species in suitable habitats that may be affected by development

or site disturbance.

Connectivity of populations, abundance of resources (prey species or food plants),

and undisturbed habitat are three primary factors affecting plant and animal populations.

The piecemeal pattern that development unavoidably exhibits is difficult to reconcile

with the needs of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark within a

given urban growth area. Further, previously common species may become uncommon

due to disruption by development, and the fragmentary protection of small pockets of

habitat is unlikely to prevent extirpation of some species without intensive species

management, which is beyond the scope of these individual CAOs. The Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark have been affected by habitat loss through

development and conversion. Protective measures undertaken during development of

lands may provide benefits for these species; however, based on our review of the

Washington County, State, and city regulatory mechanisms, we conclude that these

measures are currently inadequate to protect the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and

streaked horned lark from further population declines associated with habitat loss,

164

inappropriate management, and loss of connectivity. Because neither the Taylor’s

checkerspot nor the streaked horned lark has a widespread distribution, we are unable to

invoke the WDFW priority habitat and species recommendations as land is developed

and habitat lost in areas not currently occupied by either subspecies, and therefore we

conclude these regulatory mechanisms are inadequate for the purpose of conserving these

subspecies.

In Oregon, the Land Conservation and Development Commission in 1974

adopted “Goal 5,” a broad Statewide planning goal that covers more than a dozen

resources, including wildlife habitats and natural areas. Goal 5 and related Oregon

administrative rules (Chapter 660, Divisions 16 and 23) describe how cities and counties

are to plan and zone land to conserve resources listed in the goal.

Goal 5 and its rules establish a five-step planning process for Oregon's cities and

counties: (1) Inventory local occurrences of resources listed in Goal 5 and decide which

ones are important; (2) identify potential land uses on or near each resource site and any

conflicts that might result; (3) analyze economic, social, environmental, and energy

consequences of such conflicts; (4) decide whether the resource should be fully or

partially protected, and justify the decision; and (5) adopt measures such as zoning to put

that policy into effect. This five-step Goal 5 process was established by rules adopted in

1982, and revised in 1996. The revisions tailored the process to the individual resources

covered by Goal 5.

165

Local governments identify conflicting uses that exist, or could occur, with regard

to significant Goal 5 resource sites. A local government may determine that one or more

significant Goal 5 resource sites are conflicting uses with another significant resource

site. Local governments analyze the consequences that could result from decisions to

allow, limit, or prohibit a conflicting use. The local government determines the level of

protection for each significant site. Local governments determine whether to allow, limit,

or prohibit identified conflicting uses for significant resource sites. A local government

may decide that the conflicting use should be allowed fully, notwithstanding the possible

impacts on the resource site.

In summary, Goal 5 is a required planning process that allows local governments

to make decisions about land use regulations and whether to protect the individual

resources based upon potential conflicts involving economic, social, environmental, and

energy consequences. It does not require minimum levels of protections for natural

resources, but does require weighing the various impacts to resources from land use.

Based on our review of Oregon State regulatory mechanisms, we conclude that they are

inadequate to protect the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or streaked horned lark from

further population declines associated with habitat loss or inappropriate management,

because the program recommends, but does not require, that local governments make

planning decisions that result in protection of sensitive resources.

Summary of Factor D

166

In summary, the existing regulatory mechanisms described above are not

sufficient to significantly reduce or remove the existing threats to the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark. The Canadian recovery strategy is a

positive forward step for streaked horned lark, although, as the species is thought to be

extirpated from Canada, it is unlikely to result in a change in the streaked horned lark’s

downward trend across its range. Lack of essential habitat protection under State laws

leaves these species at continued risk of habitat loss and degradation in Washington and

Oregon. National Wildlife Refuges provide important protections for streaked horned

lark habitat in Washington and Oregon.

On JBLM, regulations and recently developed “training range standard operating

procedures” applying to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark are

covered by the current INRMP and ESMP. We find that the military training, as it

currently occurs, causes direct mortality of individuals and impacts habitat for the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark in all areas where training and

the subspecies overlap. We must therefore conclude that military training, despite the

policies and regulations in place on JBLM, will continue to result in mortality events and

loss and destruction of occupied Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat patches; thus our

conclusion is that existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate on JBLM lands.

The Washington CAOs and Oregon’s planning process Goal 5 generally provide

conservation measures to minimize habitat removal and direct effects to the the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark. However, habitat removal and

167

degradation, direct loss of individuals, increased fragmentation, decreased connectivity,

and the lack of consistent regulatory mechanisms to address the threats associated with

these effects are not prohibited under these State processes, and adverse effects to these

species continue to occur.

Based upon our review of the best commercial and scientific data available, we

conclude that the existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to reduce the threats to

the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark now or in the future.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Low Genetic Diversity, Small or Isolated Populations, and Low Reproductive Success

Most species’ populations fluctuate naturally, responding to various factors such

as weather events, disease, and predation. Purvis (2000, p. 3), however, suggested that

these factors have less impact on a species with a wide and continuous distribution.

Populations that are small, fragmented, or isolated by habitat loss or modification of

naturally patchy habitat, and other human-related factors, are more vulnerable to

extirpation by natural, randomly occurring events, to cumulative effects, and to genetic

effects that plague small populations, collectively known as small population effects.

These effects can include genetic drift (loss of recessive alleles), founder effects (over

time, an increasing percentage of the population inheriting a narrow range of traits), and

168

genetic bottlenecks leading to increasingly lower genetic diversity, with consequent

negative effects on evolutionary potential.

Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly—Although the genetic diversity and population

structure of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is unknown, a loss of genetic diversity may

have occurred as a result of geographic isolation and fragmentation of habitat patches

across the distribution of the existing populations. Dispersal of individuals directly

affects the genetic composition of populations and possibly the abundance of individuals

in a population (Hellmann et al. 2004, p. 59). For other subspecies of Edith’s

checkerspot and their closely related European relative Melitaea, small populations led to

a high rate of inbreeding (Boggs and Nieminen 2004, p. 98). The Service is currently

partnering with WDFW to explore questions of genetic relatedness in the subpopulations

of Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies. Due to its small population size and fragmented

distribution, we conclude that these negative factors associated with small population

size, as well as the potential historical loss of genetic diversity, may contribute to further

population declines for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. Therefore, we consider small

population size and the potential loss of genetic diversity to be a threat to the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly.

Streaked Horned Lark—Genetic analysis has shown that streaked horned larks

have suffered a loss of genetic diversity due to a population bottleneck (Drovetski et al.

2005, p. 881), the effect of which may be exacerbated by continued small total population

size. In general, decreased genetic diversity has been linked to increased chances of

169

inbreeding depression, reduced disease resistance, and reduced adaptability to

environmental change, leading to reduced reproductive success (Keller and Waller 2002,

p. 235).

Recent studies in Washington have found that streaked horned larks have lower

fecundity and nest success than other northwestern horned lark subspecies (Camfield et

al. 2010, p. 277). In a study on the south Puget Sound, all measures of reproductive

success were lower for streaked horned larks than for other ground-nesting birds at the

same prairie sites (Anderson 2010, p. 15). Streaked horned lark’s egg hatching rate at

these sites is extremely low (i.e., 44 percent at 13th Division Prairie) (Anderson 2010, p.

18). Comparisons with savannah sparrows (Passerculus sandwichensis), a bird with

similar habitat requirements that nests on the same prairies, found that streaked horned

lark fecundity was 70 percent lower (Anderson 2010, p. 18). If streaked horned lark’s

very low reproductive success was caused by poor habitat quality, other ground-nesting

birds at the study sites would be expected to show similarly low nest success rates; that

other bird species have much higher nest success in the same habitat suggests that

inbreeding depression may be playing a role in the decline of streaked horned larks in the

south Puget Sound (Anderson 2010, p. 27). Other factors consistent with hypothesized

inbreeding depression in the south Puget Sound population include two cases of observed

mother-son pairings (Pearson and Stinson 2011, p. 1), and no observations of

immigration from other sites into the Puget lowland breeding sites (Pearson et al. 2008,

p. 15).

170

Estimates of population growth rate (λ) that include vital rates from all of the

nesting areas in Washington (south Puget Sound, Washington Coast, and one lower

Columbia River island) indicate that streaked horned larks in Washington are declining

by 40 percent per year, apparently due to a combination of low survival and fecundity

rates (Pearson et al. 2008, pp. 10, 13; Camfield et al. 2011, p. 7). Territory mapping at 4

sites on the south Puget Sound found that the total number of breeding streaked horned

lark territories decreased from 77 territories in 2004 to 42 territories in 2007—a decline

of over 45 percent in 3 years (Camfield et al. 2011, p. 8). The combination of low

genetic variability, small and rapidly declining nesting populations, high breeding site

fidelity, and no observed migration into the Puget lowlands populations suggests that the

south Puget Sound population could become extirpated in the near future (Pearson et al.

2008, pp. 1, 14, 15).

In 2011, a project was initiated to increase genetic diversity in the south Puget

Sound streaked horned lark population. Twelve eggs (four three-egg clutches) were

collected from streaked horned lark nests in the southern Willamette Valley and were

placed in nests at the 13th Division Prairie site at JBLM (Wolf 2011, p. 9). At least five

young successfully fledged at the receiving site; if even one of these birds returns and

successfully breeds in future years, it will likely increase genetic diversity in the

receiving population, resulting in improved fitness and reduced extinction risk for the

south Puget Sound larks (Wolf 2011, p. 9). In 2012, one fledgling that originated from an

Oregon translocated clutch in 2011 survived its first winter, and returned to 13th Division

Prairie; it did not breed successfully, but the return indicates that the project is likely to

171

meet its objective to increase the genetic diversity of the streaked horned larks that breed

in the south Puget Sound (Wolf 2012, p. 9). Based on our consideration of these factors,

we conclude that the loss of genetic diversity, the current number of small and isolated

populations (particularly in Washington State), and the subspecies’ low reproductive

success are likely to combine to result in continued population declines for the streaked

horned lark, and thus pose a threat to the subspecies.

Climate Change

Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and projected

changes in climate. The terms “climate” and “climate change” are defined by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The term “climate” refers to the

mean and variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years

being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also

may be used (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). The term “climate change” thus refers to a change in

the mean or variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or

precipitation) that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether

the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2007a, p. 78).

Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that changes in

climate are occurring, and that the rate of change has been faster since the 1950s.

Examples include warming of the global climate system, and substantial increases in

precipitation in some regions of the world and decreases in other regions. (For these and

172

other examples, see IPCC 2007a, p. 30; and IPCC 2007d, pp. 35–54, 82–85). Results of

scientific analyses presented by the IPCC show that most of the observed increase in

global average temperature since the mid-20th century cannot be explained by natural

variability in climate, and is “very likely” (defined by the IPCC as 90 percent or higher

probability) due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the

atmosphere as a result of human activities, particularly carbon dioxide emissions from

use of fossil fuels (IPCC 2007a, pp. 5–6 and figures SPM.3 and SPM.4; IPCC 2007d, pp.

21–35). Further confirmation of the role of GHGs comes from analyses by Huber and

Knutti (2011, p. 4), who concluded it is extremely likely that approximately 75 percent of

global warming since 1950 has been caused by human activities.

Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include consideration of natural

processes and variability, as well as various scenarios of potential levels and timing of

GHG emissions, to evaluate the causes of changes already observed and to project future

changes in temperature and other climate conditions (e.g., IPCC 2007c, entire; Ganguly

et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529). All combinations of

models and emissions scenarios yield very similar projections of increases in the most

common measure of climate change, average global surface temperature (commonly

known as global warming), until about 2030. Although projections of the extent and rate

of warming differ after about 2030, the overall trajectory of all the projections is one of

increased global warming through the end of this century, even for the projections based

on scenarios that assume that GHG emissions will stabilize or decline. Thus, there is

strong scientific support for projections that warming will continue through the 21st

173

century, and that the scope and rate of change will be influenced substantially by the

extent of GHG emissions (IPCC 2007a, pp. 44–45; IPCC 2007c, pp. 760–764 and 797–

811; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555–15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529). (See IPCC

2007b, p. 8, for a summary of other global projections of climate-related changes, such as

frequency of heat waves and changes in precipitation. Also see IPCC 2011(entire) for a

summary of observations and projections of extreme climate events.)

Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on species. These

effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they may change over time, depending

on the species and other relevant considerations, such as interactions of climate with

other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007e, pp. 214–246). Identifying

likely effects often involves aspects of climate change vulnerability analysis.

Vulnerability refers to the degree to which a species (or system) is susceptible to, and

unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and

extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the type, scope, and rate of climate change and

variation to which a species is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity (IPCC

2007a, p. 89; see also Glick et al. 2011, pp. 19–22). There is no single method for

conducting such analyses that applies to all situations (Glick et al. 2011, p. 3). We use

our expert judgment and appropriate analytical approaches to weigh relevant information,

including uncertainty, in our consideration of various aspects of climate change.

As is the case with all stressors that we assess, even if we conclude that a species

is currently affected or is likely to be affected in a negative way by one or more climate-

174

related impacts, it does not necessarily follow that the species meets the definition of an

“endangered species” or a “threatened species” under the Act. If a species is listed as

endangered or threatened, knowledge regarding the vulnerability of the species to, and

known or anticipated impacts from, climate-associated changes in environmental

conditions can be used to help devise appropriate strategies for its recovery.

Global climate projections are informative, and, in some cases, the only or the

best scientific information available for us to use. However, projected changes in climate

and related impacts can vary substantially across and within different regions of the

world (e.g., IPCC 2007a, pp. 8–12). Therefore, we use “downscaled” projections when

they are available and have been developed through appropriate scientific procedures,

because such projections provide higher resolution information that is more relevant to

spatial scales used for analyses of a given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58–61, for a

discussion of downscaling). With regard to our analysis for the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly and streaked horned lark, downscaled projections are available.

The ranges of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark extend

from the southern edge of the Georgia Basin, Canada, down through the Puget Sound

trough in Washington State, and south to the Willamette Valley, Oregon. Downscaled

climate change projections for this ecoregion predict consistently increasing annual mean

temperatures from 2012 to 2095, using the IPCC’s medium (A1B) emissions scenario

(IPCC 2000, p. 245). Using the General Circulation Model (GCM) that most accurately

predicts precipitation for the Pacific Northwest, the Third Generation Coupled Global

175

Climate Model (CGCM3.1) under the medium emissions scenario (A1B), annual mean

temperature is predicted to increase approximately 1.8 ˚Fahrenheit (F) (1 ˚Celsius (C)) by

the year 2020, 3.6 ˚F (2 ˚C) by 2050, and 5.4 ˚F (3 ˚C) by 2090 (Climatewizardcustom

2012). This analysis was restricted to the ecoregion encompassing the overlapping range

of the species of interest and is well supported by analyses focused only on the Pacific

Northwest by Mote and Salathé in their 2010 publication, Future Climate in the Pacific

Northwest (Mote and Salathé 2010, entire). Employing the same GCM and medium

emissions scenario, downscaled model runs for precipitation in the ecoregion project a

small (less than 5 percent) increase in mean annual precipitation over approximately the

next 80 years. Most months are projected to show an increase in mean annual

precipitation. May through August are projected to show a decrease in mean annual

precipitation, which corresponds with the reproductive season for both species of interest

in this final rule (Climatewizardcustom 2012).

The potential impacts of a changing global climate to the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly and streaked horned lark are presently unclear. Projections localized to the

Georgia Basin—Puget Sound Trough—Willamette Valley Ecoregion suggest that

temperatures are likely to increase approximately 5 ˚F (2.8 ˚C) at the north end of the

region by the year 2080, based on an average of greenhouse gas emission scenarios B1,

A1B, and A2 and all Global Circulation Models employed by Climatewizard (range = 2.6

˚F to 7.6 ˚F; 1.4 ˚C to 4.2 ˚C). Similarly, the mid region projection predicts an increase

an average of 4.5 ˚F (range = 2.1 ˚F to 7.1 ˚F) (average of 2.5 ˚C with a range of 1.2 ˚C to

3.9 ˚C) and the southern end to increase by 4.5 ˚F (range = 2.2 ˚F to 7.1 ˚F) (average of

176

2.5 ˚C with a range of 1.2 ˚C to 3.9 ˚C). Worldwide, the IPCC states it is very likely that

extreme high temperatures, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will increase in

frequency (IPCC 2007c, p. 783).

Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly—Because the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly

occupies a relatively small area of specialized habitat, it may be vulnerable to climatic

changes that could decrease suitable habitat or alter food plant seasonal growth patterns

(phenology). However, while it appears reasonable to assume that the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly may be affected, as detailed below, we lack sufficient certainty to

know specifically how climate change will affect the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly.

The relationship between climate change and survival for the Euphydryas editha

complex is driven more by the indirect effects of the interaction between seasonal growth

patterns of host plants and the life cycle of the checkerspot butterfly than by the direct

effects of temperature and precipitation (Guppy and Fischer 2001, p. 11; Parmesan 2007,

p. 1868; Singer and Parmesan 2010, p. 3170).

Predicting seasonal growth patterns of butterfly host plants is complicated,

because these patterns are likely more sensitive to moisture than temperature (Cushman

et al 1992, pp. 197–198; Bale et al. 2002, p. 11), which is predicted to be highly variable

and uncertain in the Pacific Northwest (Mote and Salathé 2010, p. 31). Climate models

for the Georgia Basin—Puget Sound Trough—Willamette Valley Ecoregion consistently

predict a deviation from the historical monthly average precipitation, with the months of

177

January through April projected to show an increase in precipitation across the region,

while June through September are predicted to be much drier than the historical average

(Climatewizard 2012).

During the active season of pre-diapause larvae (early spring), the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly feeds primarily on plants of the family Scrophulariaceae

(snapdragon family, including species of Castilleja and Triphysaria) and Plantaginaceae

(plantain family) (Stinson 2005, p. 88). Available information suggests that if climate

change disrupts seasonal growth patterns of food plants, it is conceivable that an adult

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly may be able to use alternative food plants that occur

within its range (Singer and Wee 2005, pp. 353–355; Singer et al. 1992, pp. 17–18). The

larval stage of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is more limited in terms of potential

host plant species. Nevertheless, we have no information indicating that any of these

changes (e.g., in availability of food plants) is likely to occur in the near future.

It is likely that the overlap of seasonal growth patterns between these primary

larval host plants and the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly will display some level of

stochasticity due to climatic shifts in precipitation and increased frequency of extreme

weather events. For the Edith’s checkerspot (Euphydryas editha), Parmesan (2007, p.

1869) reported that a lifecycle mismatch can cause a shortening of the time window

available for larval feeding, causing the death of those individuals unable to complete

their larval development within the shortened period, citing a study by Singer (1972, p.

75). In that study, Singer documented routine mortality of greater than 98 percent in the

178

field due to phenological mismatches between larval development and senescence of

their annual host plant Plantago erecta (California plantain). When mismatches such as

these form the ‘starting point,’ insects may be highly vulnerable to small changes in

synchrony with their hosts (Parmesan 2007, p. 1869).

Predicting future population dynamics and distributions is complex for animals

such as butterflies that have two very different physiological stages (larva and adult) (for

example, see Bale et al. 2002, p. 5). Moreover, forecasting the responses of butterflies

and other insects to elevated temperatures or variable precipitation is largely based on

field and laboratory studies (Hellmann 2002, pp. 927–929). However, the relationship

between these changing environmental conditions and the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly

has not been explicitly studied, though the extirpation of populations in British Columbia

is attributed to drought conditions and the encroachment of woody vegetation into

formerly suitable habitat (Guppy 2012, in litt.). One of the two primary host plants for

the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is ubiquitous across the entire range of the subspecies

and extends well beyond areas where Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly populations persist.

This suggests that there is potential for range shifting, if the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly had the capacity to disperse across the landscape.

Uncertainty about climate change impacts does not mean that impacts may or may

not occur; it means that the risks of a given impact are difficult to quantify (Schneider

and Kuntz-Duriseti 2002, p. 54; Congressional Budget Office 2005, entire; Halsnaes et

al. 2007, p. 129). The interplay between host plant distribution, larval and adult butterfly

179

dispersal, and female choice of where to lay eggs will ultimately determine the

population response to climate change (Singer and Parmesan 2010, p. 3164). However,

determining the long-term responses to climate change from even well-studied butterflies

in the genus Euphydryas is difficult, given their ability to switch to alternative larval food

plants in some instances (Singer and Thomas 1996, pp. S33–34; Hellmann 2002, p. 933;

Singer et al. 1992, pp. 17–18). Attempts to analyze the interplay between climate and

host plant growth patterns using predictive models or general State-wide assessments and

to relate these to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly are equally complicated (Murphy and

Weiss 1992, p. 8). Despite the potential for future climate change in Western

Washington, as discussed above, we have not identified, nor are we aware of any data on,

an appropriate scale to evaluate habitat or population trends for the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly or to make predictions about future trends and whether the subspecies will be

significantly impacted. Based on these considerations, at this time, we do not consider

the effects of climate change to be a threat to the subspecies.

Streaked Horned Lark—Sea level on the Pacific Coast of Washington and Oregon

is predicted to rise according to expected values generated by an ensemble mean of

models of relative sea-level rise (Tebaldi 2012, p. 4). At Toke Point, Willapa Bay,

Washington, near occupied nesting habitat for streaked horned lark, sea level is predicted

to rise 3.9 in (9.9 cm) by 2030, and 9.8 in (0.25 cm) by 2050 (Tebaldi 2012, p. 4).

Streaked horned larks are attracted to breeding sites where there are long sight lines and

sparse vegetation, making sandy islands and shorelines ideal habitats for nesting. Sea-

level rise is not currently projected to reach the height of streaked horned lark nesting

180

habitat on the beaches. If these projections underestimate sea-level rise and nesting

habitat is infringed upon by rising waters, streaked horned larks will likely respond by

moving to up shore or to other breeding habitats.

The indirect effects of climate change are primarily associated with changes in

habitat, such as succession from a sparsely vegetated condition to a shrubby or forested

state, which would make habitat unsuitable for nesting. These negative impacts may be

offset by other, potentially positive effects and continued management of occupied

habitats. On the ocean beaches, an increase in the frequency of winter storm surges may

improve upshore nesting habitat for larks by disturbing or killing encroaching vegetation.

Many islands used for nesting in the Columbia River are likely to continue receiving

dredge spoil deposits, perpetuating the conditions of early primary succession that

streaked horned larks seek for nesting. Primary management on most of the currently

occupied breeding sites on the mainland of Washington and Oregon is for agricultural,

industrial, or military uses. Such management attracts streaked horned larks through the

reduction of standing vegetation; thus conversion to unsuitable habitat due to shifts in

climate is less likely in these areas. As a result, we have not identified nor are we aware

of any data on an appropriate scale to evaluate habitat or populations trends for the

streaked horned lark or to make predictions about future trends and whether the

subspecies will be significantly impacted. Habitat changes to streaked horned lark

habitat due to the effects of climate change may provide some benefit to the subspecies

and as such is not currently considered a threat.

181

Stochastic Weather Events

Stochasticity of extreme weather events may impact the ability of endangered and

threatened species to survive. Vulnerability to weather events can be described as being

composed of three elements: exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity.

The small, isolated nature of the remaining populations of the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark increases the subspecies’ vulnerability to

stochastic (random) natural events. When species are limited to small, isolated habitats,

they are more likely to become extinct due to a local event that negatively affects the

population. While a population’s small, isolated nature does not represent an

independent threat to the species, it does substantially increase the risk of extirpation

from the effects of all other threats, including those addressed in this analysis, and those

that could occur in the future from unknown sources.

Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly—Environmental threats exacerbated by small

population size and weather can be a factor in the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly’s

breeding success. Poor weather conditions, such as cool temperatures and rainy weather,

reduce the number of days in the flight period for several early spring flying butterflies,

including the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. A shorter flight season reduces the number

of opportunities for oviposition (egg laying) for female butterflies, thus affecting the

emergence of adult butterflies in the future. Peterson (2010, in litt) provided climate and

butterfly abundance data that indicated cold winter temperature may affect the timing of

182

butterfly emergence and the size of populations in years when winters are severe. Late

emergence of adults may directly impact the mortality of larval stages if larvae are unable

to complete their life cycle before their host plants senesce, or the larvae may return to

diapause.

Butterflies, including the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, may experience

increased mortality or reduced fecundity if the timing of plant development does not

match the timing of larval or adult butterfly development (Peterson 1997, p. 167), and

large fluctuations in population sizes have been observed based on local weather patterns

(Hellmann et al. 2004, p. 45). During 2010 and 2011, the emergence of Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly adults was approximately 3 weeks later than “normal” due to wet

and cool spring weather. In addition, it has been reported that both drought and deluge

may interrupt the insect-plant interaction, resulting in decreased populations (Hellmann et

al. 2004, p. 45). The effects of drought have been shown to deleteriously affect

populations of Edith checkerspot butterflies in California (Hellmann et al. 2004, p. 45).

Based on our review, we conclude that stochastic weather events are a potential threat to

the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly due to the vulnerability of isolated, small populations.

Streaked Horned Lark—There are estimated to be fewer than 1,600 streaked

horned larks rangewide (Altman 2011, p. 213). During the breeding season, small

populations of larks are distributed across the range; in the winter, however, streaked

horned larks concentrate mainly on the lower Columbia River sites and in the Willamette

Valley. Such concentration exposes the wintering populations to potentially disastrous

183

stochastic events, such as ice storms or flooding, that could kill individuals or destroy

limited habitat; a severe weather event could wipe out a substantial percentage of the

entire subspecies (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 13). It is also possible that, as extreme

weather events become more frequent, streaked horned larks may be less able to adapt to

loss of nests given the relatively long period between nesting attempts. We have not

documented the occurrence of these threats to date, but the small and declining

population of streaked horned larks is certainly at risk of random environmental events

that could have catastrophic consequences. Based on our review, we conclude that the

effects of stochastic weather events are a potential threat to the streaked horned lark.

Aircraft Strikes and Activities at Civilian Airports

Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly— The Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is not known

to be impacted by aircraft strikes and aircraft activities at airports. Habitat management

activities at these sites are covered under Factor A.

Streaked Horned Larks—Streaked horned larks are attracted to the flat, open

habitats around airports throughout their range. Horned lark strikes are frequently

reported at military and civilian airports throughout the country, but because of the bird’s

small size, few strikes result in significant damage to aircraft (Dolbeer et al. 2011, p. 48;

Air Force Safety Center 2012, p. 2). A recent report, however, used mtDNA analysis to

document that a streaked horned lark was struck by an F-15C military aircraft at Portland

International Airport in October 2012, and caused damage to the aircraft’s #1 engine

184

(Dove et al. 2013, p. 2). Most of the specific information available for threats to streaked

horned larks at airports comes from the monitoring program at the Department of

Defense’s JBLM on the south Puget Sound; similar threats to streaked horned larks may

exist at other airports, but without focused monitoring, the threats to the birds have not

been documented. Information provided from monitoring at McChord Field is used here

as a surrogate for civilian airport information, where information on bird strikes may not

have been fully reported. McChord Field has had seven confirmed streaked horned lark

strikes from 2002 through 2010; the streaked horned larks were killed in the strikes, but

the strikes resulted in only minimal cost or damage to the aircraft (Elliott 2011, pers.

comm.). Aircraft strikes have been documented as a source of adult mortality for

streaked horned larks at McChord Field. Surveys in 2010 at McChord Field detected up

to 26 individuals at the site (Linders 2011a, p. 3); loss of even 1 adult (and possibly more,

since some strikes may not be noticeable given the small mass of a horned lark) per year

could remove up to 4 percent of the population each year. Recent modeling has shown

that adult survival has the greatest influence on population growth rates for streaked

horned larks (Pearson et al. 2008, p. 13; Camfield et al. 2011, p. 10), so consistent loss of

adult streaked horned larks to aircraft strikes could negatively impact this population.

The annual Olympic Air Show takes place in June at the Olympia Regional

Airport; the events at the air show include low-level aerobatic flying (Olympic Flight

Museum 2012, p. 1). The events do not occur on lark habitat, but parking and staging for

the event may occur on the streaked horned lark’s breeding grounds (Tirhi 2012b, in litt.).

As the air show occurs during the streaked horned lark’s breeding season, the level of

185

human activity at the site could cause nest abandonment, exposure of young to predators,

or actual nest destruction.

The Corvallis Municipal Airport is the site of the largest known streaked horned

lark population. The airport hosts training exercises for police departments on the airport

grounds (Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 25); intensive training sessions have destroyed

nests, and the disturbance may also cause streaked horned larks to delay breeding activity

(Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 25).

Both military and civilian airports routinely implement a variety of approaches to

minimize the presence of hazardous wildlife on or adjacent to airfields and to prevent

wildlife strikes by aircraft. McChord Field uses falcons to scare geese and gulls off the

airfield, and also uses two dogs for this purpose; the falcons and dogs are part of

McChord Field’s integrated bird/wildlife aircraft strike hazard program and are designed

to minimize aircraft and crew exposure to potentially hazardous bird and wildlife strikes

(Geil 2010, in litt.). The falcons and dogs cause streaked horned larks to become alert

and fly (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 12), which imposes an energetic cost to adults and

could expose nests to predation. Portland International Airport uses a variety of hazing

and habitat management tools to minimize wildlife hazards. Raptors and waterfowl pose

the greatest danger to aircraft operations, but the airport’s wildlife hazard management

plan aims to reduce the potential for any bird strikes (Port of Portland 2009, pp. 5–6).

Streaked horned larks are not known to nest near the runways at Portland International

186

Airport, but foraging individuals from the nearby Southwest Quad could be harassed by

the hazing program, which could impose resulting energetic costs.

Given the small size of streaked horned lark populations, we conclude that

disturbance associated with training and other activities at airports are threats to the

subspecies that may have significant population impacts. Although aircraft strikes can

remove individual birds from streaked horned lark populations at airports, there is

currently only limited information on one airport (McChord Field) to suggest aircraft

strikes may be a potential population level threat at some sites. However, the overall

impact of the loss of individual birds from aircraft strikes to the status of populations on

other (non-military) airports is believed to be low, as indicated by the continued presence

of populations under the current habitat conditions maintained at these airports.

Pesticides and Herbicides

Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly—In the south Puget Sound region, currently

occupied Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly sites are found in a matrix of rural agricultural

lands and low-density development. In this context, herbicide and insecticide use may

have direct effects on nontarget plants (butterfly larval and nectar hosts) and arthropods

such as butterflies (Stark et al. 2012, p. 23).

The application of the pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki (Btk) for

control of the Asian gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) likely contributed to the extirpation

187

of three historical locales for Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies in Pierce County,

Washington, in 1992 (Vaughan and Black 2002, p. 13). Spraying of Btk is known to

have adverse effects to nontarget lepidopteran species (butterflies and moths) (Severns

2002, p. 169). Severns (2002) sampled butterfly diversity, richness, and abundance

(density) for 2 years following a Btk application at Schwarz Park in Lane County,

Oregon. Diversity, richness, and density were found to be significantly reduced for 2

years following spraying of Btk (Severns 2002, p. 168). Species like Taylor’s

checkerspot butterflies, which have a single brood per year, are active in the spring and

their larvae are active during the spray application period. Most lepidopterans are more

susceptible to Btk than the target species (Asian gypsy moth) (Haas and Scriber 1998).

For nontarget lepidoptera, the early instar stages of larvae are the most susceptible stage

(Wagner and Miller 1995, p. 21).

The application of pesticides is usually restricted to a short period of the year.

However, if the target species is active at the same time as larvae and adult Taylor’s

checkerspot butterflies, the effect could be significant. Spraying of Btk still occurs in

Pierce County for gypsy moths during the time of year when Taylor’s checkerspot larvae

are active, and the threat of pesticide drift onto the prairies of Pierce County cannot be

discounted. At this time, however, we have no evidence that Btk has been sprayed in any

locations where Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies are known to occur.

Organophosphate-based insecticides are used in a number of agricultural

applications including black fly and mosquito control; spraying of vegetable, nut, and

188

fruit crops; and treatment of seed, although they are now banned from residential use.

One of these insecticides, Naled (Dibrom), has been determined to have broad impacts on

a wide array of butterfly families (Bargar 2011, p. 888) and direct effects to the larvae

and adults of a closely related species of a federally listed threatened butterfly, the Bay

checkerspot (Euphydryas editha bayensis) (EPA 2010, p. 23), if exposed. The extent to

which these insecticides are used in the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly’s range is

currently unknown, and current data were not available from the USDA.

In conclusion, we recognize that the use of pesticides would kill all life stages of

the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly if pesticides were sprayed such that habitat occupied

by the subspecies was impacted (for example, if pesticide were to drift from application

in adjacent forested areas). As noted earlier, the application of pesticide was implicated

in the extirpation of three historical locales for Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies in Pierce

County, Washington, in 1992 (Vaughan and Black 2002, p. 13). Although we are not

aware of any present overlap of exposure to pesticide use and the distribution of the

butterfly, based on the high degree of mortality that would result as a consequence of

pesticide exposure and past suspected extirpations of entire populations of the subspecies

as a likely result of pesticide use, we conclude that pesticide use is a potential threat to

the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly.

Streaked Horned Lark—The streaked horned lark is not known to be impacted by

pesticides or herbicides directly, but may be impacted by the equipment used to dispense

them. These impacts are covered under Factor A.

189

Recreation

Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly—Recreational foot traffic may be a threat to the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, as trampling will crush larvae if they are present

underfoot. The incidence of trampling is limited to the few locations where Taylor's

checkerspot butterflies and recreation overlap. For example, foot traffic is relatively

common at Scatter Creek Wildlife Area in Washington, where plants and butterfly habitat

have been trampled by horses during specialized dog competitions in which dogs are

followed by observers on horseback (Stinson 2005, p. 6), and by foot traffic using the

trail system to access the meadows of Beazell Memorial Forest (Park) in Oregon.

Recreation by JBLM personnel and local individuals occurs on and near the 13th

Division Prairie. Trampling by humans and horses, as well as people walking dogs on

the 13th Division Prairie, is likely to crush some larvae, as well as the larval and nectar

prairie plant communities that are restored and managed for in this area.

Larvae have been crushed on Dan Kelly Ridge, on the north Olympic Peninsula

by vehicles that access the site to maintain a cell tower on the ridge. Also, recreational

off-road vehicle (ORV) traffic on Dan Kelly Ridge, and on Eden Valley, has damaged

larval host plants. The ORV damage on Dan Kelly Ridge occurs despite efforts by

WDNR to block access into the upper portions of the road system through gating of the

main road. Based on our review, we conclude that ground-disturbing recreational

190

activities are a threat to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and where the population is

depressed may constitute a serious threat to the long-term conservation of the subspecies.

Streaked Horned Lark—There are documented occurrences of adverse effects to

larks from recreation. Recreation at coastal sites is a common threat to rare species;

activities such as dog walking, beachcombing, ORV use, and horseback riding in coastal

habitats may indirectly increase predation, nest abandonment, and nest failure for

streaked horned larks (Pearson and Hopey 2005, pp. 19, 26, 29). One nest (of 16

monitored) at Midway Beach on the Washington coast was crushed by a horse in 2004

(Pearson and Hopey 2005, pp. 18–19). Open sandy beaches (e.g., dredge spoil sites on

the lower Columbia islands) make good camping areas for kayakers and boaters, and

nests could be lost due to accidental crushing. During western snowy plover surveys

conducted between 2006 and 2010 at coastal sites in Washington, human-caused nest

failures were reported in 4 of the 5 years (Pearson et al. annual reports, 2007, p. 16; 2008,

p. 17; 2009, p. 18; 2010, p. 16). Because streaked horned larks nest in the same areas as

snowy plovers along the Washington Coast, it is highly likely that human-caused nest

failures also occur due to recreational activities at these sites. Good communication

between researchers and landowners has resulted in some positive actions to reduce the

adverse effects of recreation. In 2002, JBLM restricted recreational activity at the 13th

Division Prairie to protect lark nesting; JBLM prohibited model airplane flying, dog

walking, and vehicle traffic in the area used by streaked horned larks (Pearson and Hopey

2005, p. 29).

191

Although restrictions to recreational use were placed on the 13th Division Prairie

by JBLM, it is a difficult area to patrol and enforce restrictions of this type. This area,

adjacent to where streaked horned larks nest, is scheduled for a release of captive-bred

and translocated Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly larvae during March 2012. Based on our

review, we conclude that activities associated with recreation are threats to the streaked

horned lark.

Nest Parasitism

Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly—The Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is not known

to be impacted by nest parasitism.

Streaked Horned Lark—Nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus

ater) is a potential, though little documented, threat to streaked horned larks. Cowbirds

are common in grasslands and urban areas throughout North America; female cowbirds

lay their eggs in the nests of other songbirds (Lowther 1993, p. 1). Upon hatching, young

cowbirds compete for food with the young of the host species, and may result in lower

reproductive success for the host pair (Lowther 1993, p. 11). In a study in Kansas,

brown-headed cowbird parasitism of horned lark nests reduced the larks’ nest success by

half in those nests that were parasitized (from 1.4 young larks fledged per nest in non-

parasitized nests to 0.7 young larks produced per nest with cowbird parasitism (Hill 1976,

pp. 560–561)). Cowbirds are native to the open grasslands of central North America, but

apparently only expanded into Oregon and Washington in the 1950s, as a result of human

192

clearing of forested habitats (Lowther 1993, p. 2). Brown-headed cowbirds have been

noted at all streaked horned lark study areas, and fledgling cowbirds have been observed

begging for food from adult streaked horned larks on the Columbia River island sites

(Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 17). Extensive nest monitoring of streaked horned lark

nests in the Willamette Valley has not identified cowbird brood parasitism as a threat in

this area (Moore 2009, entire; Moore and Kotaich 2010, entire). Streaked horned larks

have had just 50 years of exposure to brown-headed cowbirds, and as such, have not

coevolved with this nest parasite. We, therefore, conclude that the effect of cowbird

brood parasitism is not currently a threat; however, it may become a threat in the future if

it further depresses nest success of the declining streaked horned lark population on the

south Puget Sound.

Vehicle Mortality

Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly—See discussion under Factor A, Development.

Streaked Horned Lark—There is some evidence that streaked horned larks are

killed by cars on rural roads (Moore 2010b, p. 6). In the Willamette Valley, larks often

breed on the margins of gravel roads, and, as they flush in response to passing cars, they

may be killed. The magnitude of this threat is unknown, but we have no data to suggest

that mortality from vehicle strikes is resulting in population-level impacts to the

subspecies. We do not consider vehicle mortality to currently be a threat to the streaked

horned lark.

193

Summary of Factor E

Based upon our review of the best commercial and scientific data available, the

loss, degradation, and fragmentation of prairies has resulted in smaller population sizes,

loss of genetic diversity, reduced gene flow among populations, destruction of population

structure, and increased susceptibility to local population extirpation for the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark from a series of threats including

pesticide use, crushing and trampling from recreational activities, and aircraft strikes and

collisions, as summarized for each subspecies below.

Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly—The degradation of habitat from recreational

trampling and crushing produced by humans, dogs, and horses has killed larvae at several

sites occupied by Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies. In addition, the use of the insecticide

BtK is suspected to be responsible for the extirpation of three historical populations in

Pierce County, Washington, in 1992 (Stinson 2005). We have also determined that the

loss of genetic diversity through inbreeding depression due to habitat fragmentation and

the isolation of the subspecies is likely an ongoing active threat. We consider the

negative impacts from recreation and pesticide use to pose potential threat to the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly, particularly given its inherent vulnerability due to small population

sizes and isolation of small populations.

194

Streaked Horned Lark—Genetic analysis has shown that streaked horned larks

have suffered a loss of genetic diversity due to a bottleneck in population size (Drovetski

et al. 2005, p. 881), the effect of which may be exacerbated by continued small total

population size. The loss of genetic diversity in small populations has been linked to

increased chances of inbreeding depression, reduced disease resistance, and reduced

adaptability to environmental change, leading to reduced reproductive success. These

effects may be apparent in the small breeding population in the south Puget Sound, which

exhibits low reproductive success.

Habitat changes to streaked horned lark habitat from climate change may provide

some benefit to the subspecies, and as such climate change is not currently considered a

threat; however, stochastic weather events may pose a threat to wintering flocks in the

Willamette Valley. Death of individual larks caused by aircraft strikes is a threat to the

small populations at airports, as the loss of even a single breeding individual can have an

adverse effect on the population. Recreation activities can cause the degradation of

streaked horned lark habitat and direct mortality to nests and young.

We consider the impacts from the loss of genetic diversity, low reproductive

success, stochastic weather events, aircraft strikes, and recreation to pose a threat to the

streaked horned lark in combination with the other threat factors identified here,

particularly given the inherent vulnerability of streaked horned lark due to small

population sizes and isolation of small populations.

195

Determination

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50

CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we

may list a species based on: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,

scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its

continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat

factors, singly or in combination.

Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information

available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly. The Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly has been lost from most locations in the

Canadian portion of its range with just one known population remaining. In Washington,

the subspecies was once known from seven Puget Sound counties, and is now known to

occur naturally in just two counties, Clallam and Pierce. In Oregon, the range of the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly has been reduced to two small relict grasslands in the

foothills of the coast range near Corvallis, in Benton County, Oregon. The distribution of

the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly has been reduced from more than 80 populations to the

196

14 occupied locations with small populations that are known rangewide today. Some of

the populations that have been extirpated have disappeared in the past decade, and many

declined from robust population sizes of more than 5,000 individual butterflies to zero

within a 3-year interval and have not returned. Most remaining populations of Taylor’s

checkerspot butterflies are very small; 5 of the 14 known populations are estimated to

have fewer than 100 individuals. Only 1 population consistently has been estimated to

have more than 1,000 individual butterflies, and this population has been severely

impacted due to habitat degradation associated with military training.

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available

regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. We

find that the threat of development and adverse impacts to habitat from conversion to

other uses (agriculture); the loss of historically occupied locations resulting in the present

isolation and limited distribution of the subspecies; the impacts of military training and

recreation; existing and likely future habitat fragmentation, habitat disturbance, and land

use changes associated with agriculture; long-term fire suppression; and the threats

associated with the present and threatened destruction, modification, and curtailment of

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat are significant. These threats are currently ongoing

and will continue into the foreseeable future for Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies.

We find that disease may be a threat, but is not currently at a significant level to

affect the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. The threat of disease to the larval host plant of

the subspecies may become substantial in the foreseeable future due to the prevalence of

197

small population sizes for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. Predation is not a threat to

Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies at this time. We conclude that existing regulatory

mechanisms do not address and reduce the threats to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly.

In contrast, the voluntary protections that have been exercised for private landowners in

lieu of rulemaking under Washington State’s forest practices regulations have provided

protection to the subspecies on private lands adjacent to DNR lands on the north Olympic

Peninsula, although this is a small proportion of existing occupied habitat for the

subspecies.

The observed habitat fragmentation and the isolation of small populations of the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly suggest that the loss of genetic diversity through

inbreeding depression may be a threat. All known locations where the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly is found in Oregon and Washington are sufficiently distant from

each other such that exchange of genetic material from a dispersing individual moving

from population to population would be unlikely. The threat of extreme weather events

(drought and deluge, and overcast, cold springs) affect host plant phenology and adult

butterfly emergence, which influences whether the larvae complete their annual life

cycle, thus affecting the size of annual populations. The effects of weather events are

particularly a threat when they affect one of the few small populations that remain. There

is a potential threat of continuing pesticide application, which is suspected to be

responsible for the extirpation of some populations of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly

in Pierce County. Recreational activities (off-road vehicles, trampling and crushing from

198

hikers and horses) have been shown to be a threat at several of the sites occupied by

Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies.

In summary, the combination of several threats that have significant impacts on

populations and the ongoing nature of these threats to the few remaining small

populations of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly leads us to conclude that the subspecies

is currently in danger of extinction throughout its range. The threats to the survival of the

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly occur throughout the subspecies’ range and are not

restricted to any particular significant portion of that range. Accordingly, our assessment

and determination will apply to the subspecies throughout its entire range. The Act

defines an endangered species as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout

all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as any species “that is

likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the

foreseeable future.” Because we find that the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is presently

in danger of extinction throughout its entire range, based on the immediacy, severity, and

scope of the threats described above, and the fact that the range and population size of the

species has already been drastically reduced, a determination of threatened species status

for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is not appropriate. Therefore, on the basis of the

best available scientific and commercial information, we determine that the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly meets the definition of an endangered species in accordance with

sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Significant Portion of the Range

199

Having determined that the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly meets the definition of

an endangered species throughout its entire range, we need not further evaluate any

significant portion of the range for this subspecies.

Streaked Horned Lark

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information

available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the streaked horned lark. The

subspecies has disappeared from all formerly documented locations in the northern

portions of its range (British Columbia, the San Juan Islands, and the northern Puget

trough), the Oregon coast, and the southern edge of its range (Rogue and Umpqua

Valleys). The streaked horned lark’s range may be continuing to contract, and the

number of streaked horned larks in Washington and on the Columbia River islands is

declining. This decline taken together with evidence of inbreeding depression on the

south Puget Sound indicates that the streaked horned lark’s range may contract further in

the future.

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available

regarding the past, present, and future threats to streaked horned lark. We find that the

threat of development and adverse impacts to habitat from conversion to other uses

(residential or commercial development, agriculture), loss and degradation of habitat due

200

to fire suppression and subsequent invasion of habitat by undesirable native and

nonnative plants, dredge spoil deposition timing and placement on Columbia River

islands, improperly timed burning and mowing regimes, military training (use of

explosive ordnance, aircraft downdraft, accidental fires, vehicle travel, dismounted

training, bivouac activities, digging, Air Mobility Rodeo, Air Expo), and conversion of

large grass seed production fields to incompatible agricultural commodities are

significant and are expected to continue into the foreseeable future. Many military

training impacts are expected to increase under the DOD’s Grow the Army initiative,

although we expect that JBLM’s final ESMPs will provide an overall conservation

benefit to the subspecies.

We find that there are likely to be significant, ongoing threats to the subspecies

due to predation, which is the most frequently documented source of mortality for eggs

and young, and the primary source of nest failure. This is especially a concern in the

south Puget Sound area, although streaked horned larks in other areas are also

susceptible. In addition, we conclude that significant, ongoing threats to the streaked

horned lark may occur due to small population effects (for this subspecies, this includes

loss of genetic diversity, low survival, and reduced fecundity and nest success). This is

of particular concern in the south Puget Sound area, where such threats in combination

with a lack of immigration into that area and high breeding site fidelity could lead to local

population extirpations. Other significant, ongoing threats to the streaked horned lark

include existing regulatory mechanisms, which are not adequate to address or reduce

threats to streaked horned lark; other activities associated with airports (development and

201

aircraft strikes); and recreation (including but not limited to pedestrians, model airplane

flying, dog walking, beachcombing, vehicle or ORV use, camping, and horseback riding

in areas occupied by streaked horned lark). These threats are expected to continue into

the foreseeable future. Potential threats include stochastic weather events, nest parasitism

by brown-headed cowbirds, and vehicle mortality, but magnitude and severity of these

threats are unknown at this time.

Streaked horned larks face a combination of several high-magnitude threats; the

threats are immediate, occur throughout the subspecies’ range, and are not restricted to

any particular significant portion of the range. Therefore, we assessed the status of

streaked horned lark throughout its entire range, and our assessment and determination

apply to the subspecies throughout its entire range. For the reasons provided in this rule,

we are listing streaked horned lark as threatened throughout its range. The Act defines an

endangered species as any species that is ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout all or a

significant portion of its range’’ and a threatened species as any species ‘‘that is likely to

become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the

foreseeable future.’’ We find that streaked horned lark is likely to become an endangered

species throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future,

based on the immediacy, severity, and scope of the threats described above. We do not

have information to suggest that the present threats are of such great magnitude that

streaked horned lark is in immediate danger of extinction, but we conclude that it is likely

to become so in the foreseeable future. Therefore, on the basis of the best available

202

scientific and commercial information, we determine that streaked horned lark meets the

definition of threatened species in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment

After finding that streaked horned lark is a threatened species throughout its

range, we next consider whether there may be a distinct vertebrate population segment

(DPS) that meets the definition of endangered, in accordance with the Service’s Policy

Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments under the

Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). The policy identifies three

elements that are to be considered regarding the status of a possible DPS. These elements

include:

(1) The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the

species to which it belongs;

(2) The significance of the population segment to the species to which it belongs;

and

(3) The population segment’s conservation status in relation to the Act’s standards

for listing (i.e., does the population segment, when treated as if it were a species, meet the

Act’s definition of endangered or threatened?) (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996).

The first two elements are used to determine if a population segment constitutes a

valid DPS. If it does, then the third element is used to consider whether such DPS

warrants listing. In this section, we will consider the first two criteria (discreteness and

significance) to determine if any unit of the streaked horned lark’s overall population is a

203

valid DPS (i.e., a valid listable entity). Our policy further recognizes that it may be

appropriate to assign different classifications (i.e., endangered or threatened) to different

DPSs of the same vertebrate taxon (61FR 4722; February 7, 1996).

Discreteness

Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate species may be

considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following two conditions:

(1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a

consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. Quantitative

measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity (separation based on genetic or

morphological characters) may provide evidence of this separation;

(2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which

differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or

regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.

In our evaluation of discreteness under the DPS policy, we primarily considered

the information indicating the separation of streaked horned larks during the breeding

season into three regions (the south Puget Sound, Washington Coast and Columbia River,

and the Willamette Valley). Observation of banded streaked horned larks has shown that

the birds show strong site philopatry in the breeding season (i.e., individuals tend to

return to the same location to breed each year) (Pearson et al. 2008, p. 12), but birds from

all regions mix in the winter (Pearson et al. 2005, pp. 2–6). In the winter most of

204

streaked horned larks that breed in the south Puget Sound migrate south to the Willamette

Valley or west to the Washington coast; streaked horned larks that breed on the

Washington coast either remain on the coast or migrate south to the Willamette Valley;

birds that breed on the lower Columbia River islands remain on the islands or migrate to

the Washington coast; and birds that breed in the Willamette Valley remain there over the

winter (Pearson et al. 2005b; pp. 5–6). Streaked horned larks spend the winter in large

mixed subspecies flocks of horned larks in the Willamette Valley, and in smaller flocks

along the lower Columbia River and Washington Coast (Pearson et al. 2005b, p. 7;

Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 7).

Possible evidence of inbreeding depression (Anderson 2010, p. 27; Pearson and

Stinson 2011, p. 1) may suggest that there is a discrete population of streaked horned

larks that breed in Washington. Estimates of population growth rate with data from

nesting areas in Washington (south Puget Sound, Washington Coast, and one lower

Columbia River island) indicate that the number of streaked horned larks in Washington

is declining each year, apparently due to a combination of low survival and fecundity

rates (Pearson et al. 2008, pp. 10, 13; Camfield et al. 2011, p. 7); this trend is not

apparent in Oregon (Myers and Kreager 2010, p. 11). The combination of low genetic

variability, small and rapidly declining nesting populations, high breeding site fidelity,

and no observed migration into the south Puget Sound suggests that streaked horned lark

in the south Puget Sound could become extirpated in the near future (Pearson et al. 2008,

pp. 1, 14, 15). Efforts to reduce this apparent isolation and concomitant genetic

consequences have been implemented within the last year.

205

A project was initiated in 2011 to counteract the apparent decline in the south

Puget Sound breeding birds. This genetic rescue effort is aimed at increasing genetic

diversity in streaked horned larks breeding in Washington, which could result in

increased nest success and an increase in the population. Twelve eggs (four three-egg

clutches) were collected from streaked horned lark nests in the southern Willamette

Valley and were placed in nests at the 13th Division Prairie site at Joint Base Lewis-

McChord (Wolf 2011, p. 9). At least five young successfully fledged at the receiving

site; if even one of these birds returns to breed in future years, it will likely increase

genetic diversity in the receiving population, resulting in improved fitness and reduced

extinction risk for the south Puget Sound streaked horned larks (Wolf 2011, p. 9). This

genetic rescue project will likely be continued for the next several years.

With the evidence of extensive mixing that occurs in the winter, and the genetic

rescue project to bolster genetic diversity in Washington, which has resulted in genetic

mixing between Oregon and Washington populations, there does not appear to be marked

separation among streaked horned larks from the three regions. In addition, the evidence

of deleterious genetic consequences to the birds breeding in Washington suggests that

any possible isolation of this population is not the result of adaptation or natural

differentiation of this population, but rather is symptomatic of drastic population declines

and loss of connectivity between potentially interbreeding subpopulations. Because we

find the potential “regional populations” are not markedly separate, we do not consider

them to be discrete under the DPS policy.

206

Evaluation of Discreteness

Our analysis of the apparent level of isolation and evidence of inbreeding

depression does not lead to a finding that any subunit of streaked horned larks that nest in

Washington, in the south Puget Sound, on the Washington coast, or on the Columbia

River islands are discrete; therefore these populations cannot be considered to be a

potential DPS. This does not mean that the three breeding regions of streaked horned

lark are unimportant and do not have significant conservation value. It simply means that,

per our policy, the best available data at this time do not support a marked separation

between the breeding streaked horned larks in the three regions, based on information

available to us, such that this population would meet the discreteness criterion of our DPS

policy.

Significance

Under our DPS Policy, a population must be discrete and significant to qualify as

a DPS. Since we have determined that no populations of streaked horned larks are

discrete, we will not consider whether that population segment is significant.

Conclusion of DPS Analysis for Streaked Horned Lark

207

On the basis of the best available information, we have determined that there are

no discrete populations of the streaked horned lark. As no population segments met the

discreteness element, and, therefore, no populations qualify as a DPS under the Service’s

DPS policy, we will not proceed with an evaluation of the status of the population

segment under the Act.

Significant Portion of the Range

In determining whether a species is endangered or threatened in a significant

portion of its range, we first identify any portions of the range of the species that warrant

further consideration. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions an

infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of the range

that are not reasonably likely to be both (1) significant and (2) endangered or threatened.

To identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether

there is substantial information indicating that: (1) The portions may be significant, and

(2) the species may be in danger of extinction there or likely to become so within the

foreseeable future. In practice, a key part of this analysis is whether the threats are

geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species are essentially

uniform throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration.

Moreover, if any concentration of threats applies only to portions of the species’ range

that are not significant, such portions will not warrant further consideration.

208

If we identify portions that warrant further consideration, we then determine

whether the species is endangered or threatened in these portions of its range. Depending

on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, the Service may address

either the significance question or the status question first. Thus, if the Service considers

significance first and determines that a portion of the range is not significant, the Service

need not determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there. Likewise, if

the Service considers status first and determines that the species is not endangered or

threatened in a portion of its range, the Service need not determine if that portion is

significant. However, if the Service determines that both a portion of the range of a

species is significant and the species is endangered or threatened there, the Service will

specify that portion of the range as endangered or threatened under section 4(c)(1) of the

Act.

As described above, we have determined that streaked horned lark is likely to

become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range; therefore the

subspecies meets the definition of a threatened species under the Act. In the course of

this rangewide determination, we considered whether some portion of the full range of

the subspecies may face threats or potential threats acting individually or collectively on

streaked horned lark to such degree that the subspecies as a whole should be considered

endangered. We detail our consideration of that question here.

Although the threats to streaked horned larks in Washington and Oregon are

apparently similar in nature (including loss of habitat to development, poor habitat

209

quality due to lack of adequate management to maintain low-stature vegetation,

predation, and human disturbance during the breeding season), for reasons unknown, the

population trend for streaked horned larks in Washington appears to be markedly

different than the trend for the subspecies in Oregon.

Streaked horned larks in Washington occur on the south Puget Sound, on the

Washington coast, and on islands and dredge disposal sites in the lower Columbia River

(including two sites in Portland, Oregon). The total estimated population of streaked

horned larks in these areas is 270–310 birds (Altman 2011, p. 213). Demographic

modeling using data from these sites uniformly shows precipitous population declines.

Pearson et al. (2008, pp. 3, 12) examined population vital rates (reproductive rates,

juvenile survival, and adult survival) at seven sites (four in the south Puget Sound, two on

the Washington Coast, and one Columbia River island) over 4 years (2002–2005) and

concluded that the Washington population is declining by 40 percent per year.

Schapaugh (2009, pp. 9, 15, 18) used both deterministic and stochastic models to analyze

the data collected by Pearson et al. (2008, p. 3), and projected that, in all cases, streaked

horned larks in Washington would likely become extirpated within 25 years.

Camfield et al. (2011, p. 4) analyzed the data from the same three local

populations considered by Pearson et al. (2008) and Schapaugh (2009), described above

(the data were collected from about 137 nests over 4 years (2002–2005)). Camfield et al.

(2011, p. 8) concluded that these populations have reached a point where they are

declining towards extinction, and are not sustainable without immigration. The declining

210

trend is probably most pronounced in the south Puget Sound population, where studies

have identified apparent inbreeding depression, which is likely a result of the small

population size, high site fidelity, and complete absence of breeding season immigration

(i.e., no observed immigration of breeding birds from any other sites) (Pearson et al.

2008, pp. 14–15).

The population of streaked horned larks in the Willamette Valley of Oregon

appears to be more stable. The population in the Willamette Valley is estimated at 900–

1,300 birds (Altman 2011, p. 213); no population modeling has been done using data

from Oregon, but the apparent trend of the subspecies in the Willamette Valley is stable,

based on the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s 1996 and 2008 surveys for

streaked horned larks at sites throughout the Willamette Valley (Myers and Kreager

2010, p. 11). Population monitoring at various sites in the Willamette Valley show that

several large populations are fairly stable or increasing. Surveys conducted at Baskett

Slough NWR from 2006 to 2009 showed a population increase from 18 pairs in 2006, to

35 pairs in 2009 (Moore 2008, p. 8; Moore 2012, in litt.). Surveys at William L. Finley

NWR found the population increasing from 15 pairs in 2006, to 40 pairs in 2010 (Moore

2008, p. 9; Moore 2012, in litt.). Streaked horned lark population at Corvallis Municipal

Airport, the site of the largest known population of the subspecies, measured 75 pairs in

2006, 102 pairs in 2007, 80 pairs in 2008, and 85 pairs in 2011 (Moore 2008, p. 16;

Moore 2012, in litt.).

211

Although streaked horned larks in the Willamette Valley face many of the same

threats as populations in Washington, the data suggest that streaked horned larks in the

Willamette Valley are declining at a slower place and have abundant potential habitat on

the agricultural lands in the valley. The best available information does not suggest that

they are likely to experience significant declines in the foreseeable future, to the degree

that this population would be considered in danger of extinction at the present time. The

threats in the Willamette Valley are relatively small population size, and likely loss of

habitat to future development and incompatible management practices, which leads us to

conclude that the subspecies is threatened in the Willamette Valley.

The best available data therefore suggest that, under current conditions, streaked

horned larks in Washington (south Puget Sound, Washington coast, Columbia River

islands) will likely continue to decline towards extinction within this century. Having

already determined that streaked horned lark is threatened throughout its range, we

considered whether threats may be so concentrated in some portion of its range that, if

that portion were lost, the entire subspecies would be in danger of extinction. In applying

this test, we determined that even with the potential loss of the Washington populations,

the relatively larger, population in the Willamette Valley of Oregon would likely persist;

therefore the subspecies as a whole is not presently in danger of extinction, and therefore

does not meet the definition of an endangered species under the Act.

Continued decline of the Washington populations considered in conjunction with

the larger populations in the Willamette Valley leads us to the conclusion that, on

212

balance, the subspecies is appropriately defined as a threatened species throughout its

range under the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened

species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal

protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results

in public awareness and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies;

private organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States

and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection

required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed,

in part, below.

The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened

species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such

conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the

protective measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop

and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species.

The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to

halt or reverse the species’ decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery.

The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-

sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.

213

Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a

species is listed and preparation of a draft and final recovery plan. The recovery outline

guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the

process to be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to

address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes

available. The recovery plan identifies site-specific management actions that set a trigger

for review of the five factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may

be downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery

plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and

provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams

(comprised of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernment organizations,

and stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the

recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our

website (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Washington Fish and Wildlife

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad

range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental

organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include

habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive propagation

and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The recovery of many listed species

cannot be accomplished solely on Federal lands because their range may occur primarily

214

or solely on non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires cooperative

conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.

Upon listing, funding for recovery actions will be available from a variety of

sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal

landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,

pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Washington and Oregon will be eligible for

Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery

of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark. Information on our grant

programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at:

http://www.fws.gov/grants.

Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with

respect to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with

respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this

interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section

7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any action that

is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in

destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed

subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of

the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may

215

affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into

formal consultation with the Service.

Federal agency actions within the species’ habitat that may require conference or

consultation or both as described in the preceding paragraph include actions to manage or

restore critical habitat, actions that require collecting or handling the species for the

purpose of captive propagation and translocation to new habitat, actions that may

negatively affect the species through removal and conversion or degradation of habitat.

Examples of activities authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal agencies that may

affect listed species or their habitat include, but are not limited to:

(1) Military training activities and air operations conducted in or adjacent to

occupied or suitable habitat on DOD lands;

(2) Activities with a Federal nexus that include vegetation management such as

burning, mechanical treatment, and/or application of herbicides/pesticides on Federal,

State, private, or Tribal lands;

(3) Ground-disturbing activities regulated, funded, or conducted by Federal

agencies in or adjacent to occupied and/or suitable habitat; and

(4) Import, export, or trade of the species.

The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions

and exceptions that apply to all endangered wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2)

of the Act, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it illegal for

any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes harass, harm,

216

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these),

import, export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or

offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. Under the Lacey Act

(18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), it is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry,

transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions

apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.

We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving

endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain circumstances. Regulations

governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife, and at 17.32 for

threatened wildlife. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the

following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the

species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities.

It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR

34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed, those

activities that will or will not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of

this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on proposed and

ongoing activities within the range of the listed species. The following activities could

potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:

217

(1) Unauthorized collecting; sale or offer for sale in interstate or foreign

commerce; and delivery, receipt, or transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the

course of a commercial activity of the species.

(2) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey upon the Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly or the streaked horned lark, such as the introduction of competing,

nonnative plants or animals to the States of Washington and Oregon;

(3) The unauthorized release of biological control agents that attack any life stage

of these subspecies, for example, Btk release in the range of Taylor’s checkerspot

butterflies;

(4) Unauthorized modification of the soil profiles or the vegetation components

on sites known to be occupied by Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies and streaked horned

larks; and

(5) Deposition of dredge materials on occupied streaked horned lark breeding

habitats, intentional harassment of the subspecies at airports as part of a wildlife hazard

reduction program, and mowing or burning of the subspecies’ occupied habitats during

the breeding season.

Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of

section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see

218

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Requests for copies of the

regulations concerning listed animals and general inquiries regarding prohibitions and

permits may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services,

Eastside Federal Complex, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232–4181 (telephone

503–231–6158; facsimile 503–231–6243).

Listing the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly as endangered and the streaked horned

lark as threatened under the Act does not automatically invoke the endangered species

acts of the State of Oregon (OAR 629-605-0105). In Washington, although there is no

endangered species act per se, there is a prohibition against take of any species listed by

the State regulatory agency (WDFW); however, there is no restriction to loss or

modification of habitat. Further, the States may enter into agreements with Federal

agencies to administer and manage any area required for the conservation, management,

enhancement, or protection of endangered species. Funds for these activities could be

made available under section 6 of the Act (Cooperation with the States) or through

competitive application to receive funding through our Recovery Program under section

4 of the Act. Thus, the Federal protection afforded to these subspecies by listing them as

endangered or threatened species is reinforced and supplemented by protection under

State law.

Special Rule

219

Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary may publish a special rule that

modifies the standard protections for threatened species in the Service’s regulations at 50

CFR 17.31, which implement section 9 of the Act, with special measures that are

determined to be necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species.

As a means to promote conservation efforts by encouraging activities that inadvertently

create needed habitat for streaked horned lark, we are issuing a special rule for this

species under section 4(d) of the Act. In the case of a special rule, the general regulations

(50 CFR 17.31 and 17.71) applying most prohibitions under section 9 of the Act to

threatened species do not apply to that species, and the special rule contains the

prohibitions necessary and appropriate to conserve that species. Under the special rule,

take of streaked horned lark caused by certain common practices by agricultural

operations; by wildlife hazard management at airports on State, county, private, or tribal

lands; and by noxious weed control conducted on non-federal lands would be exempt

from section 9 of the Act. Activities on Federal lands or with any Federal agency

involvement will still need to be addressed through consultation under section 7 of the

Act.

Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports. Some management actions taken at

airports are generally beneficial to streaked horned larks. Streaked horned larks have

been documented to breed successfully and to maintain populations at airports in the

south Puget Sound and Willamette Valley. Airports routinely implement programs to

minimize the presence of hazardous wildlife on airfields, and these activities

unintentionally create suitable habitat for streaked horned larks. The special rule for

220

airport management acknowledges the benefits to larks from these activities; covered

actions include vegetation management to maintain desired grass height on or adjacent to

airports through mowing, discing, herbicide use, or burning; hazing of hazardous wildlife

(geese, and other large birds and mammals); routine management, repair, and

maintenance of roads and runways; and modification and management of forage, water,

and shelter to be less attractive to these hazardous wildlife, as described under the

Regulation Promulgation section, below. Many of the activities that benefit the

streaked horned lark on non-Federal airports are a result of practices to maintain safe

conditions for aviation; we recommend that airport operators follow the guidance

provided in Federal Aviation Administration advisory circular 150/5200-33C Hazardous

Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports (FAA 2007, entire), and all other applicable

related guidance. We also exempt take associated with accidental aircraft strikes, as these

strikes are an unavoidable consequence of creation of habitat for larks on airfields.

The listing of the streaked horned lark imposes a requirement on airport managers

where the subspecies occurs to consider the effects of their management activities on this

subspecies. It is likely that airport managers would take actions to deter the subspecies

from areas where it currently occurs in order to avoid the burden of the resulting take

restrictions that would accrue from the presence of a listed species. However, this special

rule, which exempts the non-Federal airport activities listed above, and which may

otherwise result in take under section 9 of the Act, eliminates the incentive for airports to

reduce or eliminate populations of streaked horned larks from the airfields.

221

Agricultural Practices. The largest area of potential habitat for streaked horned

larks is the agricultural land base in the Willamette Valley, Oregon. The wide open

landscape context and low vegetation structure in agricultural fields, especially in grass

seed fields, attract larks, probably because those working landscapes resemble the natural

habitats formerly used by the subspecies when the natural disturbances associated with

floods and fires maintained a mosaic of suitable habitats for the subspecies. Habitat

characteristics of agricultural lands used by streaked horned larks include: (1) Bare or

sparsely vegetated areas within or adjacent to grass seed fields, pastures, or fallow fields;

(2) recently planted (0–3 years) Christmas tree farms with extensive bare ground; and (3)

wetland mudflats or “drown outs” (i.e., washed out and poorly performing areas within

grass seed or row crop fields). Currently, there are approximately 420,000 acres (169,968

ha) of grass seed fields in the Willamette Valley, and an additional approximately

500,000 acres (202,343 ha) of other agriculture. In any year, some portion of these

roughly 1 million acres (404,685 ha) will have suitable streaked horned lark habitat, but

the geographic location of those areas may not be consistent from year to year, nor can

we predict their occurrence.

While some agricultural activities may harm or kill individual streaked horned

larks, maintenance of extensive agricultural lands in the Willamette Valley is crucial to

maintaining the population of streaked horned larks in the valley. Section 9 of the Act

provides general prohibitions on activities that would result in take of a threatened

species; however, the Service recognizes that routine agricultural activities, even those

with the potential to inadvertently take individual streaked horned larks, are necessary

222

components of agricultural operations and create habitat that may provide for the long-

term conservation needs of the subspecies. The Service recognizes that in the long term,

it is a benefit to streaked horned larks to maintain those aspects of the Willamette

Valley’s agricultural landscape that can aid in the recovery of the subspecies. We believe

this special rule will further conservation of the subspecies by discouraging conversions

of the agricultural landscape into habitats unsuitable for the streaked horned lark and

encouraging landowners to continue managing the remaining landscape in ways that meet

the needs of their operation and provide suitable habitat for the streaked horned lark.

In addition, we believe that, in certain instances, easing the general take

prohibitions on non-federal agricultural lands may encourage continued responsible land

uses that provide an overall benefit to the subspecies. We also believe that such a special

rule will promote the conservation efforts and private lands partnerships critical for

species recovery (Bean and Wilcove 1997, pp. 1–2). However, in easing the take

prohibitions under section 9, the measures developed in the special rule must also contain

prohibitions necessary and appropriate to conserve the species. As discussed elsewhere

in this rule, streaked horned larks face many threats. Foremost among these is the

scarcity of large, open spaces with very early seral stage vegetation. In the Willamette

Valley, large expanses of burned prairie or the scour plains of the Willamette and

Columbia Rivers may have provided suitable habitat for streaked horned larks in the past.

With the loss of these natural habitats during the last century, alternative breeding and

wintering sites, including active agricultural lands, have become critical for the continued

survival and recovery of the streaked horned lark. The unique challenge for conservation

223

of the streaked horned lark on agricultural lands will be to find a way to work with

private landowners to voluntarily create habitat for the subspecies rather than allow the

habitats on their lands to become unsuitable through inaction. Section 9 of the Act

prohibits a range of actions that would take a listed species, including actions that destroy

habitats essential to individuals of the species. However, section 9 of the Act does not

prohibit inaction; thus, a landowner’s failure to disturb habitat on a regular basis to

maintain the vegetation structure needed by streaked horned larks would not be a

violation of section 9 of the Act. If recovery of the streaked horned lark requires the

availability of agricultural lands in the Willamette Valley, and we believe it does, then we

need to give landowners reasons and incentives to manage their lands in ways that allow

larks to thrive on those lands.

While it appears that streaked horned larks may be benefiting from agricultural

practices in the Willamette Valley, much remains to be learned about the effects of

agricultural activities on the streaked horned lark. We have concluded that developing a

conservation partnership with the agricultural community will allow us to answer

important questions about the impact of various agricultural practices, and will provide

valuable information to assist in the recovery of the subspecies. We further believe that,

where consistent with the discretion provided by the Act, implementing policies that

promote such partnerships is an essential component for the recovery of listed species,

particularly where species occur on private lands. Conservation partnerships can provide

positive incentives to private landowners to voluntarily conserve natural resources, and

can remove or reduce disincentives to conservation (Knight 1999, p. 224; Brook at al.

224

2003, p. 1644; Sorice et al. 2011, p. 594). The Service will work closely with the farming

community in the Willamette Valley to develop ways to monitor impacts on streaked

horned larks from routine agricultural activities. We conclude that this commitment is

necessary and appropriate, and will provide further insights into land stewardship

practices that foster the continued use of the Willamette Valley farm land in ways

beneficial to both streaked horned larks and the agricultural community.

In response to public comments received on the proposed rule, we have revised

the 4(d) special rule for the streaked horned lark. We have determined that exempting

specified agricultural operations in the Willamette Valley of Oregon, rather than

rangewide, as originally proposed, from the take prohibitions under section 9 of the Act,

is the appropriate scope for the 4(d) special rule for agricultural activities. We are

limiting the application of the 4(d) special rule for agricultural activities to the Willamette

Valley in Oregon because we have no information to suggest that the streaked horned

lark uses agricultural lands in Washington State.

We have also revised the list of agricultural activities that are exempt from the

take prohibitions under section 9 of the Act based on feedback from agricultural interests.

We are aligning the definition of “normal farming practices” and “normal transportation

activities” to be consistent with relevant Oregon state laws (ORS §30.930 and §30.931,

respectively). We have also amended the list of covered activities to address specific

agricultural practices in the Willamette Valley that may affect the streaked horned lark.

Based on feedback from agricultural interests, we deleted several activities from the 4(d)

225

special rule (i.e., routine management and maintenance of stock ponds and berms to

maintain livestock water supplies; routine maintenance or construction of fences for

grazing management; placement of mineral supplements; and irrigation of agricultural

crops, fields, and livestock pastures) and added others (i.e., hazing of geese and

predators; and maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems). Please see the Summary

of Changes from the Proposed Rule section of this document for a complete list of

changes to the 4(d) special rule between the proposed and final rule stages.

We believe that a 4(d) rule for agricultural lands in the Willamette Valley is

necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of streaked horned lark. We

therefore exempt take of streaked horned larks resulting from normal farming activities,

which are specified below in the Regulation Promulgation section, under section 9 of

the Act.

Noxious Weed Control on Non-Federal Lands. Based on public comments, we

are adding noxious weed control activities on non-federal lands to the list of activities in

the 4(d) special rule that are exempt from take under section 9 of the Act.

Streaked horned larks nest, forage, and winter on extensive areas of bare ground

with low-statured vegetation. These areas include native prairies, coastal dunes, fallow

and active agricultural fields, wetland mudflats, sparsely vegetated edges of grass fields,

recently planted Christmas tree farms with extensive bare ground, moderately to heavily

grazed pastures, gravel roads or gravel shoulders of lightly traveled roads, airports, and

dredge deposition sites in the lower Columbia River. As mentioned under Factor A, the

226

suppression and loss of ecological disturbance regimes, such as fire and flooding, across

vast portions of the landscape have resulted in altered vegetation structure in these habitat

types. This has facilitated invasion by nonnative grasses and woody vegetation,

including noxious weeds, rendering habitat unsuitable for streaked horned larks.

Habitat management to maintain low-statured vegetation is essential to

maintaining suitable nesting, wintering, and foraging habitat for streaked horned larks.

Although streaked horned larks are known to eat the seeds of weedy forbs and grasses,

and while improperly timed actions can destroy nests and young, removal of noxious

weeds wherever they may occur will help to maintain the low-statured vegetation

required by nesting and wintering larks. Targeted plants include those on County, State,

and Federal noxious weed lists (see State and Federal lists via links at

http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxiousDriver; Washington State counties each have a

noxious weed control website, and selected Oregon State counties maintain noxious weed

lists). By their nature, noxious weeds grow aggressively and multiply quickly, negatively

affecting all types of habitats, including those used by larks. Some species of noxious

weeds spread across long distances through wind, water, and animals, as well as via

humans and vehicles, thereby affecting habitats far away from the source plants.

Section 9 of the Act provides general prohibitions on activities that would result

in take of a threatened species; however, the Service recognizes that removal of noxious

weeds, even those with the potential to inadvertently take individual streaked horned

larks, is necessary and may in part provide for the long-term conservation needs of the

227

streaked horned lark. The Service recognizes that in the long term, it is a benefit to

streaked horned lark to remove noxious weeds wherever they may occur. We believe this

special rule will further the conservation of the species by helping to prevent spread of

those noxious weeds that may render habitat unsuitable for the streaked horned lark, and

by encouraging landowners to manage their lands in ways that meet their property

management needs as well as helping to prevent degradation or loss of suitable habitat for

the streaked horned lark. We therefore exempt take of the streaked horned lark under

section 9 of the Act resulting from routine removal or other management of noxious

weeds, as described under –the Regulation Promulgation section, below.

Provisions of the Special Rule

We determine that issuance of this special rule is necessary and advisable to

provide for the conservation of the streaked horned lark. We believe the actions and

activities discussed above, while they may cause some level of harm to or disturbance of

the streaked horned lark, create and improve habitat for the subspecies, and are important

elements in the subspecies’ conservation and recovery efforts. Exempted activities

include existing routine airport practices as outlined above by non-Federal entities on

existing airports, agricultural activities, and control of noxious weeds on non-Federal

lands.

Required Determinations

228

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact

statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be prepared in connection with listing a species

as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published

a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October

25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available on the Internet at

http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0080 or upon request from

the Field Supervisor, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).

Authors

The primary authors of this document are staff of the Washington and Oregon

Fish and Wildlife Offices.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

229

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless otherwise

noted.

2. Amend §17.11(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, as follows:

a. By adding an entry for “Lark, streaked horned” in alphabetical order under

BIRDS; and

b. By adding an entry for “Butterfly, Taylor’s checkerspot” in alphabetical order

under INSECTS.

The additions read as follows:

230

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

231

Species

Common name Scientific name

Historic

range

Vertebrate

population

where

endangered

or threatened

Status When

listed

Critical

habitat

Special rules

* * * * * * *

BIRDS

* * * * * * *

Lark, streaked horned Eremophila alpestris

strigata

U.S.A. (WA,

OR), Canada

(BC)

Entire T 824 17.95(b) 17.41(a)

* * * * * * *

INSECTS

* * * * * * *

Butterfly, Taylor’s

checkerspot

Euphydryas editha

taylori

U.S.A. (WA,

OR), Canada

NA E 824 17.95(i) NA

232

(BC)

* * * * * * *

233

3. Amend § 17.41 by adding paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 17.41 Special rules—birds.

(a) Streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata). (1) Which populations

of the streaked horned lark are covered by this special rule? The components of this

special rule that apply to airport management and noxious weed control cover the

rangewide distribution of this bird; the agricultural component applies only to the

Willamette Valley in Oregon.

(2) What activities are prohibited? Except as noted in paragraphs (a)(3), (4), and

(5) of this section, all prohibitions of § 17.31 apply to the streaked horned lark.

(3) What activities are allowed on airports on non-Federal lands? (i) Incidental

take of the streaked horned lark will not be a violation of section 9 of the Act, if the

incidental take results from routine management activities associated with airport

operations to minimize hazardous wildlife, consistent with regulations at 14 CFR

139.337.

(ii) Hazardous wildlife is defined by the Federal Aviation Administration as

species of wildlife, including feral animals and domesticated animals not under control,

that are associated with aircraft strike problems, are capable of causing structural damage

to airport facilities, or act as attractants to other wildlife that pose a strike hazard. Routine

management activities include, but are not limited to, the following:

(A) Routine management, repair, and maintenance of roads and runways (does

not include upgrades or construction of new roads or runways);

234

(B) Control and management of vegetation (grass, weeds, shrubs, and trees)

through mowing, discing, herbicide application, or burning;

(C) Hazing of hazardous wildlife; and

(D) Habitat modification and management of sources of forage, water, and shelter

to reduce the attractiveness of the area around the airport for hazardous wildlife.

(iii) Incidental take of larks caused by accidental aircraft strikes at airports on

non-Federal lands is also exempted from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act.

(4) What agricultural activities are allowed on non-Federal land in the

Willamette Valley in Oregon? Incidental take of streaked horned lark will not be a

violation of section 9 of the Act, if the incidental take results from accepted agricultural

(farming) practices implemented on farms consistent with State laws on non-Federal

lands.

(i) For the purposes of this special rule, farm means any facility, including land,

buildings, watercourses and appurtenances, used in the commercial production of crops,

nursery stock, livestock, poultry, livestock products, poultry products, vermiculture

products, or the propagation and raising of nursery stock.

(ii) For the purposes of this special rule, an agricultural (farming) practice means

a mode of operation on a farm that:

(A) Is or may be used on a farm of a similar nature;

(B) Is a generally accepted, reasonable, and prudent method for the operation of

the farm to obtain a profit in money;

(C) Is or may become a generally accepted, reasonable, and prudent method in

conjunction with farm use;

235

(D) Complies with applicable State laws; and

(E) Is done in a reasonable and prudent manner.

(iii) Accepted agricultural (farming) practices include, but are not limited to, the

following activities:

(A) Planting, harvesting, rotation, mowing, tilling, discing, burning, and herbicide

application to crops;

(B) Normal transportation activities, and repair and maintenance of unimproved

farm roads (this exemption does not include improvement or construction of new roads)

and graveled margins of rural roads;

(C) Livestock grazing according to normally acceptable and established levels;

(D) Hazing of geese or predators; and

(E) Maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems.

(5) What noxious weed control activities are allowed on non-Federal lands?

Incidental take of streaked horned lark will not be a violation of section 9 of the Act, if

the incidental take results from routine removal or other management of noxious weeds.

Routine removal or other management of noxious weeds are limited to the following, and

must be conducted in such a way that impacts to non-target plants are avoided to the

maximum extent practicable:

(i) Mowing;

(ii) Herbicide and fungicide application;

(iii) Fumigation; and

(iv) Burning.

236

* * * * *

Dated: September 17, 2013

Rowan W. Gould

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Billing Code 4310-55-P

<FRDOC> [FR Doc. 2013&ndash;23567 Filed 10&ndash;2&ndash;13; 8:45 am]

<BILCOD>BILLING CODE 4310&ndash;55&ndash;P

[FR Doc. 2013-23567 Filed 10/02/2013 at 8:45 am; Publication Date: 10/03/2013]